Features
Headlines
Search
Archives
London Film Festival
Rather like two well-matched friends that one sets up on a failed blind date, Roald Dahl and Hollywood really ought to have got along better over the years. Taken at face value, Dahl’s rightly beloved children’s books should be a cinch to film: the concepts are high, the imagery vivid, the storytelling swift and snappy.
Yet for all these virtues, and for no lack of trying on Hollywood’s part, a stone-cold classic filmization of one of his novels still awaits us. Some stand by Mel Stuart’s irony-deficient “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory”; others will put in a word for Henry Selick’s vividly textured but emotionally inert take on “James and the Giant Peach.” No filmmaker has exhibited more understanding of Dahl’s cruel streak than Nicolas Roeg, but his largely dazzling “The Witches” still loses its nerve in the final reel with a facile ending.
Though the men share a broad eccentricity, Wes Anderson’s fey, faintly solipsistic creative touch once more seems a less-than-perfect match for the nastier, more arch sensibility of Dahl – and there are a few glib missteps in his otherwise appealingly ragged riff on “Fantastic Mr. Fox” that show up the disconnect.
But Anderson has at least been savvy in picking one of Dahl’s youngest-skewing, most sweet-natured narratives for his first ever adaptation. The brevity and elemental simplicity of the book’s survival-themed tale provides a lot more room for Anderson’s trademark affectations and diversions – be it the familiar 1970s-style duds or a jangly nonsense ditty from Jarvis Cocker – than Dahl’s later, darker work would.
With its multiple in-jokes and smart-alec visual details, Anderson has ostensibly brought “Fantastic Mr. Fox” to an adult audience, but the truth is that his familiar faux-naif stylings register more sincerely in a children’s film than in his previous work. As a Dahl fan, I was unmoved; as an Anderson agnostic, I was gently, unexpectedly charmed.
Though significant liberties have been taken, Anderson hasn’t made much effort to expand or complicate the book’s lean narrative, wherein the rakish fox of the title (voiced by George Clooney) is forced underground – facing familial discord and potential starvation – by vengeful farmers weary of his regular poaching.
Even while moving at a comparatively languid pace for a family feature, the film resolves Dahl’s key conflicts in under an hour, setting the stage for an Anderson-invented final act that’s little more than an entertaining victory lap, repeating story beats via increasingly elaborate set pieces.
As such, for all his stated devotion to the source material, I’m not sure Anderson makes clear his grasp of what this story is about: where Dahl’s story (and, indeed, the film’s first half) centers on a family man’s guilt-ridden quest to provide for his family, the film’s climactic act lowers the stakes with a far slighter motive, as Fox and his merry band of misfits conspire to retrieve his tail, shot off by a farmer earlier in the film.
The transition from a family’s hunger to a dandy’s vanity as our point of empathy in the film never quite coheres, but Anderson acolytes are unlikely to be bothered by this, as “Fantastic Mr. Fox” has enough high spirits – and arouses enough visual fascination – to keep us distracted from its storytelling weaknesses.
Always a filmmaker to place environment before character, Anderson, in collaboration with gifted production designer Nelson Lowry, has fashioned his most meticulous, richly imagined story world to date, an autumn-hued, oddly pleasing fusion of the director’s trademark retro-Americana and bucolic English rusticity. (The film is set in Britain, though the world of its animal characters is wholly American.)
The medium of stop-motion animation complements Anderson’s obsessive preoccupation with costuming and set-dressing beautifully: details that can seem overbearingly precious in his live-action work here lend the film a handmade quality that enriches the action rather than stifling it.
Also transferring surprisingly well to the medium is the nimble chemistry of Anderson’s ensembles – Fox and his cohorts interact with a loose conversational ease that can be difficult to capture in animated form, aided by wry voice work from the likes of Bill Murray and Willem Dafoe.
Clooney’s Fox is perhaps overly informed by the star’s own man-about-town persona, which hinders our emotional investment somewhat; happily, Meryl Streep’s pitch-perfect contribution as Fox’s wife locates the right amount of desperation beneath the drollery, in the characterization that hews closest to Dahl’s book.
Quite who the film is for is never made clear: it’s perhaps too leisurely and too remote for kids raised on the crisp storytelling of Pixar films, and too twee for the less specialized adult audience. Ultimately, it’s hard to shake the suspicion that Anderson made the film for precisely nobody but himself, which is fine – he seems to have realized that the holding pattern of his recent features called for a major formal overhaul.
That the switch to animation (and the merger with a distinct literary voice) has resulted in a film that is both quintessential to Anderson’s oeuvre, while being more genial and less fussy than anything he’s yet made, suggests this could be a detour worth continuing. Hollywood’s great Roald Dahl movie, however, remains elusive.
19 responses so far
1 10-13-2009 at 7:09 pm
Brent said...
Another informative review, Guy. Hoping to catch this soon.
On a wildly unrelated note, I managed to catch Broken Embraces, and landed on a similar page as you. A gorgeously photographed film that perhaps serves as little more than an Almodovar highlight reel.
I felt the risks and the intrigue of his previous features were glaringly omitted.
Does the London Fest finally bring The White Ribbon your way?
2 10-13-2009 at 7:17 pm
AmericanRequiem said...
im suprised to see you give it a good review guy, i really appreciate how you point out your bias yet rate it without indulging those biases. so it really is on for best animated feauture it would seem, guy did you review coraline or up i cant remember, id like to reread those if you have.
I think Guillermo Del Toro directing the BFG would really be the masterpiece your looking for, and its still my favorite of Dahls books.
3 10-13-2009 at 7:51 pm
Bob McBob said...
saw the film; thought it was the most amateur production I had ever seen
4 10-13-2009 at 8:03 pm
red_wine said...
I am always very impressed with Anderson’s film-making(though I’veseen only portions of his film). But like you said his quirkiness seems a bit precious. His movies almost propose quirkiness as a way of life.
The news of directing by email seemed rather absurd to me out but that entire episode has a sense of comedy. Glad to see it has turned out well inspite of all that.
Guy, do you plan on catching Araya at the fest?
5 10-13-2009 at 8:21 pm
j said...
Hmm, hey Academy, Streep is doing great work in yet another film. Give. Her. The. Oscar.
Also, I wonder if Streep & Clooney’s perceived one-to-beat statuses will help push this into Best Animated.
Personally, I love Matilda but maybe just because I find it relatable and I watched it so many times as a kid.
6 10-13-2009 at 8:34 pm
david said...
Guy, what other films do you plan on catching at the festival??
7 10-13-2009 at 8:35 pm
slayton said...
I think ‘Matilda’ was a great film
8 10-13-2009 at 8:35 pm
j said...
Also, Guy, it looks like all 3 of the foreign Edinburgh fest films are lauded; on MC, Seraphine 84, 35 Shots 96, The Maid 87. Of course Shots has half of Seraphine’s reviews and The Maid has half of that, but still.
Refresher for others: at Sundance, The Maid won the jury’s vote for best non-American film over An Education as well as the best performance from a non-American film; An Education won the audience vote. Precious, of course, won all 3 of the American categories, albeit over contenders not in Oscar discussions right now. Alas, the chances for this film right now seem slim even though Precious & An Education have soared…
9 10-13-2009 at 8:37 pm
j said...
Oops, I meant all 3 of the foreign-language film you picked out and reviewed together in a post. I’m guessing there were more than 3 foreign films at the fest…
10 10-13-2009 at 8:44 pm
Jester said...
As much as I love Roeg’s early work, The Witches just doesn’t really work. I know it has a fervent following, which I don’t understand. It has one brilliant, haunting sequence in the beginning showing how a little girl spent her whole life trapped inside of a painting. The rest of the film fails to live up to that special sequence.
11 10-14-2009 at 12:01 am
Glenn said...
“The Witches” is my favourite, but I haven’t seen it in quite a while. Huston is fantastic though.
“thought it was the most amateur production I had ever seen”
Have you seen anything before?
12 10-14-2009 at 1:32 am
Guy Lodge said...
Brent: Yes. “The White Ribbon” screens next week, and I’ll be first in line.
Requiem: No, I never reviewed “Up” or “Coraline.” I like the latter enormously, but I thought “Up” paled beside Pixar’s best work.
Red Wine: I’d like to catch “Araya,” but it has only one screening on a very crammed day. I’ll have to see.
David: I’ll be doing a festival preview later today.
As for “The Witches,” I should say that it’s a childhood favorite, and I still love it to this day. But that ending bothered me even at the time.
13 10-14-2009 at 1:39 am
Guy Lodge said...
Oh, I didn’t address the current mini-controversy over Anderson’s directing from afar in the review (I don’t think it has a place), but I will say that the film that has come out of it couldn’t be more heavily branded with his auteur identity. Make of that what you will.
14 10-14-2009 at 3:36 pm
Robert Hamer said...
The only thing that MAY have convinced me to see this movie was a four star rave from you. So, thanks for saving me $9.
15 10-14-2009 at 5:49 pm
Guy Lodge said...
I’m flattered, but even I get impatient waiting for four-star raves from me ;)
16 10-14-2009 at 9:40 pm
Kristopher Tapley said...
Just saw it tonight. I liked it and was with it for a while, but it remained incredibly flat from start to finish. Which makes for a rather uninvolved experience.
17 10-15-2009 at 1:50 am
Joel said...
What are you talking about Bob Mc Bob? You obviously haven’t seen the film. You are just judging from the negative write-ups about its awful trailer, the manner in which it was directed (via iphone), and the general hatred towards Anderson. If there is anything redeeming about this movie it is the amazing stop-motion production. I think everyone who saw FMF at the premiere would agree that it has awesome, top-notch production.
18 10-15-2009 at 2:02 am
Guy Lodge said...
Kris: I agree, especially after a second viewing — the story doesn’t have any real urgency, and it doesn’t flow so much as jump from situation to situation. But that’s a problem I’ve always had with Anderson’s work.