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.


*****

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

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

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi