112 replies to this topic

[Peter T Chattaway]

StephenM wrote:
: . . . and the ear-piercing scene was clearly a losing-virginity joke . . .

Huh. That never occurred to me, though now that you mention it...

: I think it's rarer for the cat to die.

I dunno. I'm not sure cats are on filmmakers' radar anywhere near to the extent that dogs are.

: As Bowen points out, whenever the story is actually about a dog, the dog dies. But I suppose you're right that it's rare for it to show up and get killed just like that.

Yes. 'Tis rare. Although, as I admitted in a blog post on this subject a few years ago, my thoughts on this subject were profoundly shaped by the Disaster Movie Revival of 1996 and 1997.

[Andrew]

No doubt, I'll just be seconding a lot of previous comments (great insights there, by the way), but this is just about the first new movie I've seen this year that I've given enough of a damn about to post here. This is easily my favorite 2012 movie so far.

- I loved the music - Desplat, Britten, and Bernstein melded perfectly - lovely, lovely childlike stuff that enhances without obtruding - also, worth sticking around for the end credits for

Spoiler

Desplat's version of a Children's Guide to the Orchestra

, a smile-inducing bonus

- I'm not at all a fan of Wes Anderson's oeuvre, but man, I intuitively trusted his melding of story and mise-en-scene from moment one, and he didn't let me down. I can't remember a better use (yet not overuse, IMO) of panning shots than in this film.

- As a (perhaps over-)protective parent of 2 teens, the implied sexuality of Sam and Suzy's relationship left me a bit squeamish, but seeing this as a metaphor/fable for the 'leaving and cleaving' of young courtship and adulthood, it makes excellent sense and is quite moving. I'm actually thinking of taking my kids to this, just to see what sorts of conversations (or heck, even awkwardness) ensues. It would definitely be a nice break from superhero movies.

- Lastly, count me among those advocating for seeing this on the big screen: the pleasure of sharing in the responses of a receptive audience, the fantastic visuals, and excellent soundtrack all make such an excursion highly worthwhile. This is the only new movie of 2012 that I'm eager to see in the cinema for a second time.

Edited by Andrew, 15 July 2012 - 08:51 PM.

[Attica]

Saw this last night, and I share the love. I thought it was brilliant.

A couple of points apart from the story. The set design of the Bishop's home was way cool. I loved how the camera was moving around the home at the start of the film. I'd like to see pictures of the actual set.

Also did anyone notice that during the scene where the boy and girl first met up, the windmill behind them was turning in some shots but standing dead still in others. Not to be nitpicky but I found it intruiging that the filmmakers didn't seem to pick up on that obvious continuity error (at least while filming).

I thought the dog scene was pulled off incredibly well, simply by the fact that they were able to move into humour so quickly after (and slightly during) without it becoming distasteful. I'd think that trying humour that soon after killing off someones pet dog (in that way at least) has the potential to mistep and go south real quick. I thought that they managed to pull off the delicate balance of making this sad, but not to heavy that the film couldn't quickly go where it needed to go.

It was fun to watch the film in a fairly full theatre, and listen to some people's gut laughs. It seemed to have some parts that struck particular people in the theatre as hilarious, while others just chuckled, unlike other films where the audience in general laughs to about the same degree. I suppose that's because of it's quirkiness.... the humour touches people on a more individual level.

Edited by Attica, 16 July 2012 - 03:31 AM.

[M. Leary]

StephenM, on 13 July 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

How far do you mean? Do you think it was actually implied that they had sex? I don't think that at all, and I don't think Anderson intended it. There's a reference to an erection, and the ear-piercing scene was clearly a losing-virginity joke, but they were sleeping in the tent with clothes on still and the idea of sex was never mentioned between them. After all, they were 12! Just starting puberty. Sam admitted he still wet the bed, and they didn't know how to French kiss. Anderson certainly joked a bit here about the possibility of sex, but the kids didn't actually sleep together and I think most people would be rather horrified if they thought they had.

I agree with this. I think the narrative sustains it as well, as their relationship is not born out of physical but emotional self-discovery. The true scandal of the beach scene is not any sort of implied physical intimacy beyond what we actually see, but the way Anderson films these two relatively young children sans clothing. In several cases Anderson films Suzy in ways that in other contexts would be formally suggestive. But in this context, Anderson frames these shots with the overall Sam/Suzy innocence narrative such that to suggest these shots sexualize their experience just feels wrong somehow. In fact, it contradicts the way Sam and Suzy represent a restorative form of innocence, freedom, and faithfulness.

I think this is a brilliant maneuver by Anderson, and is evidence to me that he is more than just a storyteller and stylist. He is actually capable of creating, as in Moonrise Kingdom, a world in which all of the culturally-bred lenses for sexuality that color our experience of other films don't work. The one he creates in Moonrise is simply better, less susceptible to all the flawed perspectives on the human body and sexuality that other directors manipulate as convenient plot devices or use in place of actual character development.

Edited by M. Leary, 16 July 2012 - 12:10 PM.

[J.A.A. Purves]

My review.

[Rushmore]

J.A.A. Purves, on 06 September 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

My review.

I think that's more of a critical essay than a review. It's very good, though.

[Justin Hanvey]

Excellent movie, I'm hard pressed to find one I've seen made this year I like more. Jeff Who Lives At Home might be a close second. Secret World of Arrietty...yeah...I think this tops both of those even. I was almost hoping throughout that they would never be found. But then I realized that was not right...the whole ending scene, the adoption etc. I kinda saw it through new eyes after that. Children in a world full of adults who act like children will themselves try to act like adults. It's an interesting contrast I even see in myself, when I was a boy all I wanted to do was grow up, fall in love, get married. Now that I'm older I look back on those days with a certain nostalgic fondness. But then there's the music...and that's exactly something I thought to myself the other day...as I've grown older the stories I love, the music I listen to, the art I appreciate has only deepened and broadened. I can't see younger me loving this movie half as much as older me does. Anderson seems to reflect that in his musical choices. Boy...I've liked a couple of Anderson flicks, Life Aquatic and Darjeeling Limited really, but none of the others really stood out to me, but this one sure did. I think it was cause of the music. Also because of the loss of childhood/regaining childhood theme. I noticed the whole leaving and cleaving aspect someone else mentioned too, though I definitely don't think the scene on the beach was really supposed to be sexual, I think it was supposed to be children once again, trying to be adults. All around a great story...

[Rushmore]

"He's very kind to children. Which is important. There are a lot of children in this movie."

[Christopher Lake]

I missed this movie while it was in the theater, and I'm a big Wes Anderson fan. Ugh... it's not fun being a serious lover of films, books, and music, and also living below the U.S. poverty line. It could always be much, much worse though. I will definitely see it on DVD and/or Blu Ray. I wish that Netflix would put more of the director's films on streaming...

[Overstreet]

This Friday in Seattle, it moves to the Crest Cinemas. $3 per ticket. Depending on your location, that maybe good news or it may pour salt in your wound.

[Christopher Lake]

Overstreet, on 02 October 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

This Friday in Seattle, it moves to the Crest Cinemas. $3 per ticket. Depending on your location, that maybe good news or it may pour salt in your wound.

I live in Maryland, just outside of Washington, D.C. There are no lower-ticket-price theaters around here... it's $8 and up everywhere. At the AFI Silver Theater (a short bus ride away for me), which has many of the independent and foreign films and documentaries that are discussed here, tickets are normatively $11.50. These well-heeled D.C. people and their artsy tastes, hehe... I just happen to be a poor person, living in the area, who also has some artsy tastes! Thanks be to God for Netflix!

Edited by Christopher Lake, 02 October 2012 - 09:24 PM.

[Overstreet]

A second viewing has confirmed my suspicion that this film is going to go on revealing more and more rewards with closer attention. I really liked it the first time; I was dizzy with increasing appreciation of how every detail, every character, every line contributes to the film's purposes. This time, my reservations about the kid playing Sam Shakusky evaporated, and the performance that meant the most to me was Edward Norton's; he gives Scout Master Ward so much more than the dialogue would suggest.

So far, this is far and away the 2012 movie for me: a very bright light in what has been a year of dim and disappointing releases.

Edited by Overstreet, 06 October 2012 - 12:59 PM.

[Justin Hanvey]

My review of this is written...I'll share it as soon as Life Is Story puts it up, which may be a while considering I got 4 other reviews they still haven't put up yet...

[Justin Hanvey]

link to review

[MattPage]

Gee whiz, it's been a long time since I popped on by here. Sorry everyone. Hope you're all well.

I finally got to see this last night. And as a viewing experience I loved it. Not sure if it will knock FMF off the top of my Wes Anderson faves list.But certainly it's a great film.

But I'm troubled by the groping scene between Sam and Suzy. At the time I assumed Suzy was played by an older actress, but actually she was only 13 or so when this was filmed. Which when you think about it means that someone got her to allow herself to be groped, for the camera. Perhaps I'm just over sensitive to this due to a big paedophile scandal that's been top story in the news for the last month over here, but I feel prooundly uncomfortable with that set up.

Anyone else think that?

Matt

[Peter T Chattaway]

Great to see you here again, Matt!

Sorry to say I have no particular thoughts on the question you raised. Which is to say, I'm not quite sure what to think, myself. Though I did not think the film itself was exploitive in any way.

[MattPage]

: Though I did not think the film itself was exploitive in any way.

Just to clarify, neither did I.

Matt

[Overstreet]

It is an extremely satisfying thing to see the words "Best Picture" and "Moonrise Kingdom" in the same headline.

Thank you, IFP Gotham Awards, for giving me a moment of happiness in what I am fairly sure will turn into a season of frustration.

[Buckeye Jones]

Matt

Really enjoyed the film--one of my favorites of Anderson's. But I'm right there with you in a sense--and I see that others have discussed it above. I found the groping scene (and the upskirt shots) awkward and uncomfortable. If I was the parent, I would have axed my kid's participation based on those shots; upon reflection, while Anderson may not intend these images as exploitative, or as a corrective to the way we view or are culturally predisposed to see such images as sexualize, I'm not sure I care.

[M. Leary]

I still wrestle with the ethics of that scene, Buckeye. It is very analogous to Roeg's Walkabout, which features similarly controversial shots of kids in the wilderness - but all this controversy is confounded by the relative near-nudity of their young aboriginal guide and the fact that they are kids in the middle of the wilderness needing to bathe. I guess if one is inclined to sexualize the Walkabout scenes, they can. It is hard for me to understand why Roeg would choose to include the bathing scene, for example, other than it fits the realist tone of the film, is not at all inconsistent with the narrative, and is expected given the aboriginal context of this plight. In fact, I think Roeg challenges our assumptions about nudity and personhood by putting white and dark flesh side by side - guess which one feels "unnatural" or "immoral" when unclothed?

With Moonrise Kingdom I have a similar gut response in that some of the shots of both Suzy and Sam seem to: A. Cross some sort of hazy line. B. Are unnecessary in the sense that the same narrative element could have been filmed in a different way. On the other hand, the film would lose a hefty amount of its gravitas if the beach scene was less intimate. I don't think I would buy into the film's central relationship as much as I did if this budding romance, and its attendant physical component, had been sanitized for our consumption.

When it comes to Moonrise Kingdom and Walkabout, I would argue that the basic impulse for each film is a naturalism that only works if it adequately mimics how children relate to each other in real life. No one will question that Roeg is willing to go out on cinema limbs. But the beach scene in Moonrise Kingdom is the first time I have seen Wes Anderson so boldly demonstrate that he is willing to make the hard formal choices that lead to brilliant cinema. Based on what I see in MK, I don't think we have seen Anderson's best film yet.

But the question remains: Can these kinds of images of kids ever be filmed in a way that would not raise the exploitation question? I don't have an answer for that.