Let's take the opening scene for example. When you think about children a typical image is playing with toys and having a sense of innocence. In this scene, that is clearly not the case. We see Chaz, running a business of some sort, buying real estate something that you expect of a full-grown adult. Next we see Margot writing Pulitzer Prize plays in 9th grade and smoking cigarettes at age 12. Finally we see Richie become a tennis star at an age where he should just be learning how to play the sport. The audience sees characters that are completely opposite of what is expected of them.
Another scene where we see this theme/aspect of opposites is when Royal is out with Chaz's kids. This is opposite of what we expect because at a young age people are more reckless and willing to do dangerous things. In this case Royal is the one who wants to do crazy things while the kids have no interest in the beginning. Wes Anderson has directed this movie in a way that makes everything the opposite of what the general public thinks. I believe he does this because it makes the not only the movie seem odd (which it is), but the family (also true).
Wes Anderson has a lot of tricks up his sleeve to direct great films. In this one, he makes everything seem opposite of what it should be. Does this theme/aspect of the film benefit the film or make it more confusing and odd for the audience?
This adds a comedic aspect to the film. Seeing the unnatural is always funny to audiences, so this works very well. Also, without these instances to lighten the mood, the movie would be considered a drama with some funny moments considering the amount of serious content.
ReplyDeleteI agree. If you watch some of Anderson's other films, you see that most of the humor is derived from the fact that practically everything is unrealistic, and yet it all works together to somehow form a cohesive movie.
ReplyDelete