The Darjeeling Limited (2007) November 23, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , trackbackDirected by: Wes Anderson
He is a difficult filmmaker to encapsulate: clearly fascinated with family (or family-like) relationships, but always twisting them into dysfunctional messes; using characters who are complicated, introspective, privileged types, but are forever defining themselves by their connection to other people; a shooting style which is extremely identifiable, yet wildly simple. There’s little you can say about his movies without the acknowledgement that they are, at least in part, a definition of himself. So as fussy and detail-ridden as they can be, my belief is that this only conveys a facet of director Wes Anderson’s own life and indeed his style of film - one of over-emphasis on the minutia.
This particular story of destructive sibling bonds opens with three brothers: Jack, Francis and Peter, who haven’t spoken in over a year after their father’s unexpected death. Francis brings them together on a train heading through India with the intention of leading the group on a spiritual journey where they can learn about themselves and bond as brothers again. Almost immediately, however, the brothers start bickering and their constant mistrust of each other lands them stranded in a remote part of the country. With their laminated spiritual agenda ruined, the brothers are forced to take a real journey, in which the true meaning of the trip is revealed.
It’s typical Anderson fare, and certainly offers nothing to his cynics who often criticise him for constantly re-treading old ground and being afraid to break out of his self-crafted stereotype. There is some truth to this, but with The Darjeeling Limited the filmmaker appears to have taken a step back from the grandiose ‘epic’ spread of his previous two movies (critically acclaimed The Royal Tenenbaums, and critically denounced The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou), stripping down his central cast to just a trio of sibling rivals and letting the gorgeous natural scenery of the location add the majesty.
Yet what a central cast it is, with the three leads all bringing their A-game to ensure that these characters comes to life. Owen Wilson (as Francis) has been here before, with his optimistic, determined but ultimately misguided personality drawing similarities to his character of Dignan in Bottle Rocket [review]. He’s still a welcome sight, especially next to Rushmore alumni Jason Schwartzman who grows up significantly to play Jack, the youngest and maybe the most thoughtful brother. Most impressive of all though is a newcomer to the Anderson flock, Adrien Brody playing Peter. He fits in perfectly and draws a lot of character from the slightly arrogant yet cowardly brother, as well as nailing the most heart breaking line in the picture: “I didn’t save mine”.
The script, by Anderson himself alongside Roman Coppola and actor Jason Schwartzman, is great and an elaborate joy to hear performed. It’s also one of the more outright ‘funny’ Anderson scripts combining both the typical subtle jokes with some more madcap sequences. The brother’s constant bickering and back-biting makes for most of the early laughs, while there is also fun to be found in the details (Jack’s shoeless Beatles reference, Francis and his matriarchal ‘agreement’ making, the near-constant smoking etc.). Plus there are some great carry-over gags from the short film ‘Hotel Chevalier’ that precedes the main feature.
Then there’s the visual style to contend with. To call it ‘direct’ is an understatement – almost everything is shot head-on, from the front. Flat, horizontal tracking shots and rotations of the camera are the most common forms of movement, while the slow-motion effect (usually saved for the final shot of an Anderson movie) gets plenty of play here. I can see why people dislike the visual style; personally I’ve found it to be a conflicting presence in his work. For the most part, I love it – his compositions with all three brothers in frame are fantastic and he captures the confinements of the train and the atmosphere of India with equal expertise. But that’s not the end of the story.
Part of Anderson’s appeal is how close he wants you to get to his characters – both emotionally and physically. There are frequent close-ups of the face and it’s rare that the camera is ever more than a few feet from one of the brothers. My problem with his chosen visual style is that it can feel very ‘thin’; almost fragile – like the smallest tap on the screen would shatter the entire image. It’s this delicacy that sometimes distracts from your connection to the characters, only allowing you to get so close to them before pushing you away slightly. It’s not true for everyone, but that’s my experience with it and the main reason I think some audiences have a hard time with these movies.
If there’s one thing I can say with assurance it’s that this film cemented my opinion that Anderson’s small cast pieces are preferable to his large ensemble efforts. Not that he does either badly, but it does go to show how much more joy and insight he can draw from focussing in on just three characters. It contains inherent problems, including some ill-explained character attributes (Jack as a waitress-seducer never seems to fit) and an ending that steps over itself maybe once too many times in finding a fitting conclusion. But as with all the Anderson films, if you’re willing to enter the world and accept the journey for what it is, then you’re in for an entertaining, funny, and possibly thoughtful experience.
“I wonder if we could’ve been friends in real life?”, asks Jack of his companions, “not as brothers, but as people?”. The separation may be redundant, but just asking the question is all part of The Darjeeling Limited’s charm. Nevertheless, if it’s a must for Anderson devotees, it’s only a maybe for everyone else; with no pivotal step from the formula that defines his films: family unrest, parental fracturing, finding oneself and all the objects, possessions and people that represent those things. It’s minutia, celebrated. And that’s just the way he likes it.
Comments»
Takes a while to understand his style but once/if you do his work is very rewarding. Wes Anderson must be one of the most unusual (skilled) film-makers alive - people like this truly make the world a richer place.
Mike- yet again another piece of absolute bulls-eye eloquence! Your review exactly expresses, in terminologies I am far too inept to expunge, almost everything I thought about this movie.
I found it to be amongst his better works and agree that his smaller cast pieces work better [insert famous hyperlink to Bottle Rocket review here] and are generally more engaging.
I thought the decision to include the Hotel Chevalier short was entirely necessary, to exclude it would have ruined a significant portion of the film!
Sooper!