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

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I still think it’s a terrible play, but it makes a wonderful rehearsal.

Room Service (1938)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers step away from MGM for a solitary RKO outing, and a scarcely disguised adaption of a play to boot. Room Service lacks the requisite sense of anarchy and inventiveness of their better (earlier) pictures – even Groucho’s name, Gordon Miller, is disappointingly everyday – but it’s nevertheless an inoffensive time passer.

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater (2020)
(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

Time wounds all heels.

Go West (1940)
(SPOILERS) Comedy westerns were nothing new when the Marx Brothers succumbed – Buster Keaton had made one with the same title fifteen years earlier – but theirs served to underline how variable the results could be. For every Bob Hope (Son of Paleface) there’s a Seth McFarlane (A Million Ways to Die in the West). In theory, the brothers riding roughshod over such genre conventions ought to have been uproarious, but they’d rather run out of gas by this point, and the results are, for the most part, sadly pedestrian. Even Go West's big train-chase climax fails to elicit the once accustomed anarchy that was their stock in trade.

Shall we bind the deal with a kiss? Or, five dollars in cash? You lose either way.

The Big Store (1941)
(SPOILERS) Three go mad in a department store. The results are undoubtedly more diverting than low point Go West, but it feels as if there is even more flotsam to wade through to get to the good stuff in The Big Store, which is almost exclusively delivered by Groucho as private detective and bodyguard Wolf J Flywheel. Perhaps surprisingly, however, the climax is one of the better ones, an extended chase sequence through the store that is frequently quite inventive.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

Goodbye, Mr Chimps.

At the Circus (1939)
(SPOILERS) This is where the brothers sink into their stretch of middling MGM movies, now absent the presence of their major supporter Irving Thalberg; it’s probably for the best this wasn’t called A Day at the Circus, as it would instantly have drawn unflattering comparisons with the earlier MGM pair that gave them their biggest hits. Nevertheless, there’s enough decent material to keep At the Circus fairly sprightly (rather than “fairly ponderous”, as Pauline Kael put it).

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …