BEFORE: The Ed Norton chain is half over (already?) and you probably could have guessed, I was building up to this. I fell hard for "The Darjeeling Limited" a few years ago, and that prompted me to seek out "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "The Life Aquatic" and pretty much position myself to accept whatever Wes Anderson wants to throw my way. So to say I've been anticipating this one would be a bit of an understatement.
THE PLOT: The adventures of a legendary concierge at a famous hotel from the fictional Republic of Zubrowka between the first and second World Wars and the lobby boy who becomes his most trusted friend.
AFTER: I really want to like this film, so let me get my main complaint out of the way right off. We all have certain things that drive us crazy - for some people it's nails on a chalkboard, for others it's people eating on the subway or saying the word "actually" three times in a single sentence. One of my bugaboos with relation to films is an inability to tell a narrative in a linear, straightforward fashion. In this film, this is manifested in an inhuman, almost "Inception" level of unnecessary framing devices.
The film opens on a young girl (we presume in the present day) who's offering a tribute to a bust of an author, and holding a book which he wrote. We see the (presumed dead) author's photo, and this dissolves to footage of the author talking, in the year 1985. From there we dissolve to the voice of the author as a younger man, presumably this is the tale told in the book from the author's point of view, let's say it takes place some time in the late 1960's. And in this story the author meets an older man, who tells him HIS story, which is the story of the Budapest Hotel, and is set in 1935. At this point we're FOUR levels deep into a story within a story, and nothing of note has even happened yet.
It's like a series of Russian nesting dolls, but only the one in the center even has anything painted on it. The others just seem like something designed to frustrate you or waste your time. There IS a good, juicy, entertaining story at the heart of this film, but why is it buried under so many clunky layers? I honestly cannot think of one good reason the film couldn't have started in 1968, with the young author meeting the older man and asking him to tell his story.
SIDE NITPICK: As a result of all this unnecessary time-framing, the aspect ratio of the film jumped around a lot as well. The size of the black bars on the sides of the frame changes quite a bit in the first reel. I now realize that each different framing represents a different time period, but while viewing, this was very disconcerting and annoying.
There, now that's out of the way, we can begin. Ed Norton is just a supporting player here, but it's interesting to note that Ed Norton WEEK seems to have found its own secondary theme - that of crime and punishment. We had a drug dealer going to prison in "25th Hour", people cheating at poker and paying the price in "Rounders", and holy men being tempted and punishing themselves (and the audience) in "Keeping the Faith". Tonight the crime wheel lands on possible murder and/or art thievery, depending on your point of view, and punishment since the concierge does spend some time in prison.
But that's not really what this film is about, now is it? It's too simple, it would be like saying "Amadeus" is about a composer, or "Gone With the Wind" is about a plantation. It's about a time period, a lost era - a place and time I'm suddenly nostalgic for, even though it may never have existed at all. It's about rich, quirky people and the strange habits they have, like wearing purple topcoats with tails, riding in trains with sleeper cars, eating elaborate pastries and soaking in Turkish baths. Riding the funicular to the top of the mountain in order to take tea with the dowager countess. Taking a cable car up to the observatory, or lighting a candle in the sanctuary.
Oh, sure, some people somewhere may still do some of these things, but you get my drift. How many people take the time these days to REALLY look at art in a gallery, instead of scanning Facebook for videos of precocious toddlers or celebrity nipslips? To go to a restaurant and order a full tasting menu, including duck AND rabbit, instead of just grabbing 2 slices of 99-cent pizza and a can of Coke? When I stay at a hotel, I feel lucky if my floor has both an ice dispenser AND a soda machine.
I know our modern age has many things going for it - computers, advanced medicine, all the entertainment and information we could hope for, and then some, but part of me longs for the trappings of a grand society that, sadly, no longer exists. A time when people gave each other tulips and wrote "thank you" notes. We've got luxury to spare sometimes, but do we really appreciate it what it once meant?
Man, I love quirky movies, like "Fargo" and "Raising Arizona" and "The Big Lebowski", but this film may have a little too much quirk for me. I think this is sort of getting too close to hipster quirk.
Also starring Ralph Fiennes (last seen in "Wrath of the Titans"), F. Murray Abraham (last seen in "Muppets From Space"), Adrien Brody (last seen in "Midnight in Paris"), Willem Dafoe (last seen in "American Dreamz"), Jeff Goldblum (last seen in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"), Harvey Keitel (last seen in "U-571"), Jude Law (last seen in "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events"), Tilda Swinton (last seen in "The Beach"), Tony Revolori, Mathieu Amalric, Saorsie Ronan, with cameos from Bill Murray (last seen in "Cradle Will Rock"), Jason Schwartzman (last seen in "Saving Mr. Banks"), Owen Wilson (also last seen in "Midnight in Paris"), Tom Wilkinson (last seen in "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol"), Lea Seydoux (ditto), Bob Balaban, Fisher Stevens.
RATING: 7 out of 10 military checkpoints
No comments:
Post a Comment