Skip to main content

You’re looking so well darling, you really are. I don't know what sort of cream they put on you down at the morgue but I want some.

The Grand Budapest Hotel
(2014)

The Grand Budapest Hotel is a dizzying medley of all that is finest in Wes Anderson’s films. Which is to say, if you aren’t a fan already this is highly unlikely to convert you. Except, perhaps, by virtue of its pace. A madcap escalation of stories within stories, episodic incidents, arch dialogue, eccentric characters, and musical staging, all set against his familiar tableau compositions, Anderson’s latest film is an irresistible feast that serves its final course long before you’re in danger of feeling bloated. One might argue this isn’t a terribly deep film, its undercurrents shy of announcing themselves too forcefully, but then Anderson’s is surface detail of the highest order.


The director’s films are generally suffused with a melancholy at odds with the featherweight whimsy in which they revel. The Grand Budapest Hotel is no exception in this regard. But, there’s an additional factor at work here. Through fully embracing characters and scenarios that speak in bold and cartoonish broad strokes, Anderson has to taken a further step away from any semblance of naturalism, seemingly emboldened to present exactly the heightened milieu he favours by his (not wholly successful, depending on your love of the Roald Dahl source material) recent foray into animation, The Fantastic Mr Fox. His closest previous live action approximation to this kind of hermetically fashioned world is The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, but that picture beached through a listless lack of forward momentum. Hotel has pace and energy in abundance. Its ensemble sensibility, focused on a single character around whom the others revolve, recalls his best film The Royal Tenenbaums, and this is his best film since. It may not have the heart of that picture, but one would have to ignore Hotel’s distinctive and abundant merits to see that as a deficiency.


I won’t attempt to sound knowledgeable about Anderson’s inspiration, Austrian writer Stefan Zweig (tie-in, repackaged highlights of his work have been published in the wake of film’s release). Anderson sets the bulk of Hotel in the 1930s, when Zweig was at the height of his popularity. He was the world’s most translated author, although he never caught on in Britain and has even received some particularly his share of scathing critiques (as, of course, some dissenters have accused Anderson of a pervading lack of substance); "each sentence incredibly pretentious, false and empty – the whole thing a complete void". The director has taken the film’s Russian doll structure from the author; a tale within a tale within a tale. A girl in the present day reads a memoir at the memorial of its author. Said author is then seen in 1985 in the form of Tom Wilkinson, who relates his encounter in 1968, in the form of Jude Law, with the Hotel’s owner Zero Moustafa (the splendid F Murray Abraham, finally getting some big screen roles lately deserving of his talents). In turn, Zero recounts how he came to inherit the Hotel (a dilapidated, undernourished establishment in the ‘60s). It is at this point events displace to 1932, where concierge M. Gustave, played by Ralph Fiennes, enters the scene; a time when Zero (Tony Revolori) is a mere bellhop.


Anderson has little interest in realism or authenticity; mood and tone is everything. So M. Gustave is the epitome of English etiquette and manners, a more animated take on Jeeves whose veneer is periodically shattered when he reveals the existentially despairing and sometimes uncouth sentiments beneath (which are made all the more amusing for Fiennes’ mannered, fey delivery). Edward Norton appears as Henckels of the military police, nursing his native accent. And why not? The hotel is located in the fictional Republic of Zubrowka after all, a realm identified by architecture and machinery that look almost exactly like models (because that’s what they are). Anderson delights in  the artifice of his world; there are underlying themes concerning the rise of fascism, intruding on this just-so idyll (Zweig committed suicide in 1942, despairing at the fate that had befallen Europe), but they are never allowed to overpower Hotel’s studied frivolousness. I was going to express the sad resignation that it takes an American to write a lovely caricature of English starch and entitlement these days, probably due to pervading middle class embarrassment at the implications of espousing such airs and presumptions. But he co-wrote the script with British artist Hugo Guinness. Still, the general point remains. The truth is, much of the best British comedy is to be found in variants on rotters, cads, scoundrels and bounders, a celebration and evisceration of shallow aristocracy, from Terry-Thomas and Dennis Price to Peter Cook and the Python/Oxbridge set of the ‘60s and beyond. Now posh means Michael McIntyre. The hilarity of Fiennes’ Gustav is that his persona is now fresh and novel; his inflections and deportment are rarely seen outside of Heritage dramas these days.


Anyone who has glimpsed Anderson’s curious fashion sense and general demeanour will be quickly convinced the man reflects the idiosyncrasy of his films. Even if Gustav is based in part on Zweig, Anderson is putting something of himself into the character; a man whom M. Ivan (Bill Murray) reflects wasn’t even of his time in his time; he summons a bearing based on a idealised interpretation of his world and his place in it, and wont be swerved (mostly) by intrusive and gnarly realities. And Anderson has a lot of fun both venerating Gustav and depicting his peccadillos. He is outwardly unflappable, the picture of gentility. Yet he also takes pride in servicing the elderly residents of the Hotel (one of whose devotion, Madame D played by Tilda Swinton, in some very impressive old age prosthetics, sets in motion the chain of events in question). His slightly camp demeanour lends Gustav an indeterminate sexuality, remarked on disparagingly by Dmitri (Adrien Brody) the son of the ex-Madame D, requiring him to defend himself in prison, and provoking the jealousy of Zero when he flirts with his beloved Agatha (Sairose Ronan using, of course, her natural accent). His greeting of “darling” has the theatrical abandon of a luvvie, and this larger than life inscrutability is the perfect centre to Anderson’s outlandish story. Even when Gustav’s facade crumbles, despairing over the meaninglessness of life or losing it in a confessional booth, the pleasure comes from seeing that composure demolished while his cadences remain intact. Then there’s his love of poetry; his daily sermons to staff include daily recitals during which an uninterested congregation are not expected to pay attention. This simultaneous elegance and mockery encompasses Hotel, identifying the picture as a comedy of opposites. Anderson is much more willing than before to play with extremes, be it of manners and vulgarity or civility and violence.


If the man out of time quality lends the picture a tinge of sadness, the framing device serves to emphasises this. Times pass, entropy increases; we no longer fit in with the changing tomes and crumble or decay. Anderson captures this through showing the extremes of age, and the ungraspable nostalgia for a time that probably didn’t exist (Moonrise Kingdom is awash with this, and at times its depiction of young love carries a slightly uncomfortable vibe). But I disagree with those who suggest it’s a more persistent theme here; it’s merely more identifiable because Anderson has established broader tonal boundaries. I quite recall the same criticisms with each of his new films; that he’s stylistically distinct but essentially vacuous. Or the ones who say finally, this one shows he has some depth after all. And I can only conclude you either dig his style and personality or you don’t. It’s no use hoping he’ll “mature” or find a different voice. If you ask for that you’re looking for the wrong thing from the wrong filmmaker (not dissimilarly, those suggesting Tarantino has any depth, or that his films are about anything, are barking up the wrong tree).


Indeed, while Anderson has clearly honed his skills he admirably appears to have little interest in developing his technique; he knows what he likes in terms of framing and (lack of) camera movement. His choice to use three different aspect ratios, reflecting the different time frames, is noticeable but not distracting, which is how it should be really (no one I saw the film commented on this, if they even consciously noticed the changes). Anderson doesn’t attempt to imbue any great psychology into his choice, it’s purely aesthetic and instructive of the narrative form; I’ve seen the case made that the 1:37:1 of the main body of the film reflects the typical aspect ratio of films of that period (1930s) and accordingly 2:35:1 widescreen resembles the grand productions of the 1960s, while 1:85:1 for the 1985 and present scenes is indicative of the modern standard format. That may be the case, although Anderson doesn’t seem to have endorsed that view per se, but the latter two are surely somewhat arbitrary and interchangeable since each is as commonly used in either era. Anderson’s choices were based on a desire to shoot in the Academy ratio, for its compositional possibilities; additional interpretation seems like overlaying meaning to an extent. 


Notably, he has said he hadn’t realised how slow-paced the opening time frames are in comparison to the mayhem of the 1930s section but that it seemed completely appropriate in context – and it does. I think that’s illustrative. For all the fine crafting Anderson is no more inviting of elaborate readings of sustained subtexts, themes and compositional elements than, say, the Coen Brothers. Robert D. Yeoman, Anderson’s regular cinematographer lends the images a richness that recalls Jean Pierre Jeunet. Composer Alexandre Desplat clearly needs to be guided or inspired to do his best work. His score for the recent The Monuments Men is horrible, but this is great stuff, perfectly complementing his director’s pacing and tone (there are a number of singularly different songs and pieces from other musicians also, typically of the director).


Fiennes is the glue of the film; he informs its attitude and (obviously, it’s an Anderson film) quirkiness. Those around him are accordingly little more than amused caricatures and cameos. On the one hand, so many great performers have rarely been used to so little end (Murray barely registers, even though it’s always nice to see him). On the other, the constant parade of familiar faces is a delirious delight. Besides Murray, Monuments Men co-star Bob Balaban turns up for a scene (The Society of the Crossed Keys sequence, featuring a steady succession of concierges to come to the aid of one of their own, is a comic highlight and includes Fisher Stevens and Anderson semi-regular Waris Ahluwalia amongst its faces).  Of the Anderson regular-regulars, Owen Wilson and Jason Schwartzman appear as concierges; there’s something very resonant of the latter’s general pose and air in Revolori’s Zero. The biggest problem with these actors is that you’re left wanting more. Léa Seydoux, Jude Law, Mathieu Amalric, Harvey Keitel (randomly presenting himself as at-very-least topless in his prison scenes). Anderson may have hit upon Adrien Brody’s most perfect physical depiction, his gangly frame exaggerated by a tailored greatcoat and a wild mess of sky bound hair. He’d look at home in Disney’s 101 Dalmations. It’s fun to see him acting the villain too, since he’s often called on to supply doleful sympathy. We don’t see nearly enough of Edward Norton, and Henckels is a little too close temperamentally to the scout master in Moonrise Kingdom; Anderson needs to give him the full Brody treatment next time out.


Aside from Fiennes, and his double act with the devoted Revolori (who, as the straight man, gets none of the credit but should be congratulated for his deceptively simple work), the two actors who make the biggest splash are also from the Anderson repertory company. Both also appeared in Life Aquatic. Perhaps it’s just because I always find them a pleasure to watch, but there just isn’t enough of them. Jeff Goldblum throws out less of the pauses and inflected speech patterns than usual as Deputy Kovacs but he makes no less of an impression (including in a scene that… well, with this and Inside Llewyn Davis it doesn’t seem to be felines’ year in film; perhaps worrying also that they’re also my favourites of 2014 so far). Then there’s Willem Defoe, enjoying himself immensely in dogged psycho mode with a touch of the vampiric (he also gets some great extended motorcycle shots).


Defoe’s Joplin is key to one of the film’s best sequences, although there are so many it’s difficult to single any out. The pursuit of a freshly prison-broken Gustav takes in only-in-Anderson-land cable cars and high flung monasteries before arriving at an extended chase of Joplin that wouldn’t look out of place in Fantastic Mr Fox. There’s a larky Road Runner quality here, in particular the showdown with Joplin. That Mr Fox feel is also very evident in the preceding prison break, which sees the inmates follow a truly ridiculous route to freedom. The sudden lurches into ultra-violence are a strange departure for the refined director.  But they are still shot with the signature remove of an unobtrusive and rigid camera; which serves to make the joke an extra sick one, a punch line where you didn’t expect it.


It won't be long before Wes Anderson celebrates 20 years of (big screen) movie making, so it’s nice to see how he has expanded his audience of late; rather than redefining a niche, there appears to be a guaranteed reception for whatever he has to offer. Before it seemed a little bit as if The Royal Tenenbaums would remain the never to be repeated breakout success. The Grand Budapest Hotel looks to be his highest grossing film yet (worldwide). It’s easy to see why as it’s his most accessible, vibrant and star-laden. It’s a much-deserved hit too, since this is one of his best. If Hotel doesn’t make regular appearances in the year’s end Top 10 lists it will only serve to highlight what a great year it’s been.


*****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.