Talk:Wes Anderson

Website

Not to be picky, but it says that all the mothers die of cancer - in the Royal Tenenbaums, Chas's wife dies in a plane crash, not of cancer. User:LaxPlayer21

Whatever happened to wesanderson.org? Is he never going to use the Internet to promote himself and his work? What gives? Abisai

Villains

"A main characteristic of all his films is the complete absence of villains. His characters might be misguided and may cause pain to others but always without malice."

What about the pirates in "Life Aquatic"?

Well. . .

They were minor characters; they didnt even have any lines in english. Maybe the line could be abridged to say 'main characters', or something like that, but the Pirates didn't have any depth and werent crucial to the plot.

                  -Foster

The pirates as a group were an obstacle, not a direct villain. They were not responsible for Zissous's (Bill Murray's) fall from his former prestige, and his confrontation of them did not resolve his inner conflicts. --65.28.73.99 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

"Actor Owen Wilson co-wrote Wes Anderson's first three films and appeared in all of Anderson's films except Rushmore (he appeared in pictures)," <--- This is incorrect, Owen Wilson appears as the gym coach in Rushmore and has a few lines. I'm a new user and didn't know if that was worth correcting or not. Thought I would bring it to everyone's attention though . .

• Definitely worth fixing... --Tarnas 07:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually... (Re: 'Incorrect Information')

That's not Owen Wilson as the gym coach in "Rushmore," that's actually Owen and Luke Wilson's brother, Andrew Wilson. He also appeared along with his brothers in Wes Anderon's first film "Bottle Rocket." Owen Wilson does not actually appear in the film "Rushmore" except in photos in the background of one scene.

Still a bit fan-nish

Good article here! I'm concerned that it reads extremely pro-Anderson at the moment, though; lots of praise of what are commonly seen as his good points and no mention of what some see as his failings (for example, I think the special effects of Life Aquatic were widely regarded as disastrous, though I don't have the critics at my fingertips to back me up).

The special effects were supposed to look fake. That's made very clear in the DVD special features and commentary. The people who criticised that aspect of the film missed the point of what role the effects had in the film. --Dogbreathcanada 00:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm an Anderson fan too, but I know there's criticism out there. Can this be added in also? Phrases like "the richness of Anderson's pictures" is definitely pushing POV unless it can be shown to be a real critical consensus (and sourced as such in the article).

I've also pulled the "You might also enjoy the pictures of such-and-so" as non-encyclopedic; unless a signicant thematic/technical etc. link is established between these filmmakers, I don't see how it fits.

Glad to see we've got all this on Wes, though! --Dvyost 05:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The article does read pro-Anderson, though I don't mind since I am pro-Anderson. :) I haven't read any substantial criticisms of his work, only that some people just aren't engaged by it and don't understand it—being confused as to whether they're missing something ("Is this black comedy? Is he being sarcastic?"...). As for Life Aquatic, I guess fans (like me) would praise Anderson's visuals: he decided on claymation, which is wonderfully textural and he integrated it very seamlessly into the rest of the film, and his use of exposed sets was very controlled, not at all amateurish but instead pushing at the limits between theatre and film—which he's been pushing at his whole career. I found this mildly negative take on the film at the AllMovie Guide:

While Wes Anderson's particular and unique visual style is abundant throughout The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou, his skills as a screenwriter have abandoned him. The filmmaker Noah Baumbach collaborated with Anderson on the screenplay, marking the first time Anderson has written with anyone other than Owen Wilson. The biggest difference between this film and his others is that Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums were filled with humor derived from characters who were usually laced with melancholy. This focus on fully-rounded characters allowed the emotional highs and lows to connect with the audience. Life Aquatic offers up a protagonist whose goals are never clearly defined. Aside from a section of the film where Zissou organizes a rescue of his crew, the script never gives the character a strong enough objective. That leaves Bill Murray to fill in the gaps. His conception of the character seems to be far more interesting than the one that has been written. The director gives Murray enough room to do what he wants to with the character. (Not even The Razor's Edge allowed Murray this much empty visual and emotional space to fill up with melancholy, cynicism, and brooding.) The Life Aquatic screenplay never allows the characters to be anything more than two-dimensional figures (even when the actors are giving it their all) so the melancholy feels unearned and the quirkiness feels shoehorned into the proceedings. At best, The Life Aquatic shows that Anderson is a gifted enough image maker to keep most viewers looking at his film even if they have no emotional investment in the characters. -- Perry Seibert

I don't really see these as substantive criticisms: the critic is comparing the action to the screenplay, but who knows if he's seen the screenplay himself and why it matter anyway if the action is intriguing, and since I was emotionally invested in the characters, and since the film involved people who purposely had little direction in their lives, I really can't empathize with this reviewer's critique. Another review, from the New York Times, is positive and surprised to have enjoyed the film, doting on how the reviewer felt Anderson's style became annoying in Tenenbaums but is easy enough to buy into and very rewarding in Life Aquatic. Here's an excerpt:

There is, to be sure, a certain willful, show-off capriciousness in this approach to filmmaking, but there is also a great deal of generosity. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Baumbach have built a magpie's nest of borrowed and reconditioned cultural flotsam -- from Jacques Cousteau to Tintin and beyond -- but the purpose of their pastiche is less to show how cool they are than to revel in, and share, a childish delight in collecting and displaying strange and enchanting odds and ends. If you allow yourself to surrender to The Life Aquatic, you may find that its slow, meandering pace and willful digressions are inseparable from its pleasures.

Not that it's all fun and games. The bright colors and crazy gizmos are washed over with a strange, free-floating pathos that occasionally attaches itself to the characters, but that seems in the end to be more an aspect of the film's ambience than of its dramatic situations. Zissou's world-weary melancholy, the utter seriousness with which he goes about being absurd, contains an element of inconsolable nostalgia. He is a child's fantasy of adulthood brought to life, and at the same time an embodiment of the longing for a return to childhood that colors so much of grown-up life.

I think the common theme of reviews of Anderson are that he has a style which you either buy into and love or don't and find annoying and full of itself, a situation which I think the wikipedia article here describes, though maybe it should make this quandry even more clear. --Tarnas 06:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

"I think the common theme of reviews of Anderson are that he has a style which you either buy into and love or don't and find annoying and full of itself, a situation which I think the wikipedia article here describes"

I won't buy into that crock knowing that it's wrong. I have many friends who are indifferent about Wes Andersons films. I've read many reviews saying that they don't know what to think about what they just viewed. I do, however, believe that the way it is phrased on the wiki page is very well put, but here it is very opinionated. My view is changed of the comment now.

Themes, religion...

"His films can also be seen in terms of the traditional Christian themes of grace, forgiveness, and reconciliation."

Uhhhh...how about traditional themes of life? Even in the Judeo-Christian world, I fail to see how this can be traced back. Lockeownzj00 01:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the specific themes are worth mentioning, but I've never read any analysis or overview of Anderson suggesting that these themes are specifically "Judeo-Christian"... That should be changed unless a source can be cited, so I'm changing it. —Tarnas 01:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

A source an be cited. See http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Vol9No2/HancockCommunity.htm for the article published in The Journal of Religion and Film last year.

Real picture

What's the deal with the drawing? I would recommend a real picture.

I second. The caricature seems fan-ish. 206.221.224.35 06:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason for the drawing is that it looks like him (it illustrates well), and it's public domain (it doesn't violate any image rules). If you can find a decent, real-life photograph of him that is public domain, by all means replace the illustration. I still can't understand why people in the English wikipedia are so offended by drawn portraits, though. These portraits have been pretty much welcomed by several of the other wikipedias. —Tarnas 05:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, not an art page. I suggest using the picture that imdb uses. [1] I'm not against the drawing. It just seems very self promoting of an artist. Possibly create another page for that artist and include that drawing?

I actually came on here to comment on this same thing. The drawing is a good drawing, but I think a photograph would better serve the purposes of this site.

I move to remove the drawing. It is inappropriate to have uncommissioned fan art as part of an encyclopedia entry.--Macca7174 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

i just came to this page, but whoa, that drawing totally doesn't need to be there. no picture is better than a fan drawing. i'm taking it down. Sparsefarce 02:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I liked it quite a bit. Maybe this should have been more of a vote / discussion than a unilateral action. It's not like there are no established organizations that use portraits; consider the Wall Street Journal. -DT

The WSJ's portraits are published with the permission of the subject of the portrait. Putting drawings or modified photographs of subjects on wikipedia is a really bad idea unless that portrait/modification has been approved by the subject of the portrait; otherwise there is room for abuse, such as unflattering portraits (distorting ear/nose sizes, etc) in allowing such things. Piperdown 16:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it seems a bit rude to go ahead with an action that is currently being debated on the discussion page without consulting anyone first. I say we re-instate the drawing until a suitable picture can be found. It wasn't ideal, but it was definitely better than nothing. Waqcku 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

in the case of BLP articles, nothing is better than something that can get WP sued. Piperdown 16:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sued for what? Having a drawn-in picture that some people find innapropriate? That image was released to Wikipedia by its author, legal issues are not involved here at all. It's a matter of aesthetics, and one persons complete lack of respect for the opinions of his peers. Waqcku 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In my earlier edit, I made a generic point that it's just a bad idea to allow people to put their own drawings up on WP for representative pictures of BLP subjects. Drawings published in reliable sources already, with permission to put here, fine. But allowing people to post their own drawings of BLP's here is just not a good policy on several levels. For one thing, Wikipedia is not a place for opportunistic artists who are otherwise unpublished to make a name for their artistic renderings of BLP subjects. If the New York Times or something similar published that drawing of Wes, then put it in here assuming that source releases it. It's bad enough to allow personal photographs as they can be photoshopped and put here without professional editorial oversight, but imho allowing drawings/paintings that are otherwise not in the public domain or from a reliable source, notable artist, etc, is a bad precedent, regardless of how fantastic any portrait of Wes put here might be. Generic statements and opinions on the big picture, nothing personal or specific against the person who did the drawing. Piperdown 23:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Peanuts

One of Anderson's tradmarks, I believe, is that every one of his films has some reference to Charles Schultz's comic strip the Peanuts. However, I can't verify this as I have yet to see all of his films. Should be added if true. On a side note, I'm going to play devil's advocate and write in a 'critical' line or two even though I'm a fan of Anderson's. 206.221.224.35 06:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen all his films and haven't noticed this... it may be true, but I'm removing it from the text until it's confirmed somehow... a quick Google search doesn't reveal anything about this. —Tarnas 05:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I know they're there for Rushmore, RT, and LA... Haven't seen Bottle Rocket yet... 63.250.65.4 08:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

My edits, 12-7-05

Ok, I did a rather significant edit of the page. I think some of these are unworthy of mention, but some are debateable. Here is a summary: 1. Added a "trademarks" section because I feel we had enough for Anderson, and it seems an appropriate way to describe a director and his work, even in an encyclopedia, although I'll admit this is borderline. 2. Removed most lines that are common of pretty much every movie ever been made (like, "seeks to end in some sort of resolution to its narratives" or whatever that was and other statements) to reduce fan pov-ness. 3. Tried to make it more nPOV by making the "anti-Anderson" views from critics more prominent, such as his "pretension" or abscence of "traditional" narrative. 4. Reworked the first paragraph and added a sentence of my own to make it seem (at least to me) more balanced (although now it might seem too negative...he's a hard director to characterize in one sentence!). 5. Changed the "Judeo-Christian" section to give what is admitedly my own explanation as to why those themes often appear, but I'm not sure if this section should be there at all. 6. Minor changes in sentence structure and whatnot.

I know this is fairly, major, but today I Be Bold and it didn't seem like the article was a behive of activity. I know some of the changes might be debatable, but now I believe it's muc less fan-POV. Feel free to revert to the old, but please explain why becuase I believe most of the changes I've made, if not all, are for the better. 206.221.224.35 07:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've reworked some of your changes. I don't think his films "fail to conform to most traditional Hollywood paradigms" (blockbuster paradigms, but not Hollywood paradigms generally), and i don't think this is the reason leading "to much polarization from moviegoers concerning his work" (the "Acclaim and criticism" section below pinpoints his precious or pretentious stylings, not his lacking genre conventions, as the reason why some critics/moviegoers dislike his films).
  .....The things like "barriers are gradually overcome as individuals recognize the flaws and true desires in themselves and others" and "Typically, an Anderson film ends with several different narrative threads being resolved, relationships being restored, and things both trivial and significant being brought back to their rightful places." are not common to most films: barriers are commonly overcome, but not commonly by recognizing personal flaws, and in many movies things are not restored to their rightful places, closure instead often comes in the form of safety or returning home (Jurassic Park, E.T.), or is incomplete or thwarted (Monty Python, Annie Hall, 2001). Anderson's take on closure is more like that of Pulp Fiction or Office Space — you come out bruised, but feeling good.
  .....I reworded the "pageant-like feel" area: the pageant-like feel isn't solely the result of stationary cameras, as your rewording indicated, but I think you're right to tone down the gushing set/setting descriptions. I think maybe the first two paragraphs in the "Films" section need to be switched so the whole thing reads more naturally (moving from the basis of his films to specific story devices), but I'm still thinking of exactly how to do this. —Tarnas 06:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've switched the paragraphs, I think it reads better now. —Tarnas 22:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Personnel Section

It seems a bit repetitive to mention Eric Anderson's various roles in Wes's films three times, however I was unsure how to condense down. Anyone else want to take a stab at it? Thanks -- kj

• A little better now. —68.62.17.196 18:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Negative Criticism

"That leaves Bill Murray to fill in the gaps. His conception of the character seems to be far more interesting than the one that has been written. The director gives Murray enough room to do what he wants to with the character. (Not even The Razor's Edge allowed Murray this much empty visual and emotional space to fill up with melancholy, cynicism, and brooding.)"

This is probably because the character Steve Zissou was written for, and loosely based on, Bill Murray. Something that a person who looks for more than face value of a film would know. Is it so bad to rely on an actors TALENT if it is what is expected?

I don't think that critics should be considered credible. 1. They, obviously, haven't looked deeply into Wes Anderson, let alone the films they are critiquing. 2. I see a major lack of knowledge of documentaries and commentaries (as well as quotes from the authors and producers) of the films in their comments, ideas and thoughts which are most commonly classified (and confused) as "reviews." Which, yet again, is based by face value without a deeper understanding of the film. 3. Who cares what a two bit hack from upper New York feels about Wes Anderson films? Go to rottentomato.com if you want to read these critiques (in my opinion).

All in all, There are websites already dedicated to critics and I doubt that anyone who is REALLY interested in seeing them will not go to it. I feel that they are extremely bias and shouldn't be included in the wikipedia page for Wes Anderson. I would love to see a wikipedia page without some sort of propaganda or bias but, alas, I feel that this comment will go unnoticed or will be ignored/contested.

Career section?

This article still seems very uneven. There's nothing really about his personal/professional history, except for the little blurb at the top about his attendance at U of Texas. It seems like there's more inane trivia about his films and recurring themes than the actual circumstances of their production, which I think would be more interesting to the casual reader. Like the detail about his moving to Revolution Studios... shouldn't that be a part of the main body of text about his career, rather than as a subpoint about how his films are released onto DVD? Mseyers 06:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia, Trademarks?

There was some good information in those sections, why were these removed? I'm surpised the mention of Jacques Henri Lartigue didn't even get recycled into the "Influences" section.

I think they need to be put back into the article.

Peanuts references.

It would be wise to replace it. In the commentaries during the meeting, between margot tennenbaum and royal, the peanuts christmas song is playing and wes anderson himself says that it is a running trait in his movies.

I have a question. In the article, it says: "Anderson's stylized films also borrow youthful aesthetic qualities from comics such as Charles Schulz's Peanuts and Hergé's The Adventures of Tintin graphic novels." To whoever wrote this, or whoever else who may be qualified to answer: can you be specific and tell me what qualities are borrowed? It says "Youthful aesthetic qualities", which is good for the article, but personally I am wondering what, specifically, you think they are. Depth conveyed through simplicity? ... Something like that? I am not writing as a critic, but as someone who is earnestly looking for more specific explanation. It is a curious idea for me. Thank you!

I tried to do some clean up of this article yesterday, but left the elephant in the room on this alone: almost the entire piece reads like a college term paper written by a fan, with his own flourished opinions mingled in with reviews and critiques that are uncited. This entry has a long way to go to become encyclopedic. It needs to be pruned down to a factual biography of Wes Anderson. Editorializing on this style and themes needs detailed citing to avoid a unsourced fanboy POV to dominate it. And these comments come from a Wes fanboy. Piperdown 01:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Compression of space

The "compression of space" description is utter nonsense. I won't remove it, but I am almost certain compression of space describes the compression that arises from using telephoto lenses; it causes the foreground and background to seem closer than they really are. I've yet to find any reference to "compression of space" referring to the use of one lens exclusively in filmmaking.

• I have never heard Wes Anderson say "Compression of space" instead of Telephoto Lens. The word Telephoto sticks out so well that you just can't forget it. I recall him (W.A.) mentioning the lenses multiple times in the Life aquatic documentaries. -fkylw 4:03 PM July, 19 (CST)

Fact tags

I went through and removed several redundant fact tags sprinkled throughout the article. Since there is already an "unreferenced" template at the top of the page, it seems pointless to have specific fact tags littered throughout the article. Some of the recently-placed tags looked like plain vandalism. The "unreferenced" template on the Themes section is probably redundant as well, but I left it in because of its apparent connection with the OR tag right below it. Overall, the article needs a thorough fact-checking because there is a great deal of opinion and interpretation posing as facts. ---Charles 16:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)