One reviewer I read wrote "It's not the best Anderson film by any stretch but it's better than no Andersen at all." This is a bit more negative than I would put it since Anderson deserves much more credit than that. However, I agree it is not necessarily the "masterpiece" of his film series although I would not be flabbergasted if some future retrospective positions it that way. It is stylistically genius right down to the period set pieces from the late 60's, the flourishes of detail to the scout badges, and the patina of grainy filming evocative of nostalgic times that beg to be your own memories. Andersonian stylism is auteur filmmaking so one must accept the somewhat flat dimensionality of character sketching as servicing a higher purpose in the film. People speak curtly, succinctly, matter of factly, and with scripted perfection. You see and appreciate the brush strokes on the film canvas rather than expect photographic realism.
There are different ways to reflect on the film-- one way is comparatively as a piece in the oeuvre and the creative fabric that is Wes Anderson. Another is as a standalone movie out of the context of its predecessors or even completely blind to the actual creator. I think a well heeled review must do some of both. See a film on its own merits, its initial impression and impact without too much prejudice or filters of who directed it or what the works were before it. Then after that has digested, it's time to step back and set it alongside the retrospective. Usually a serious filmmaker will have some common developing themes running through their films, in search of an idea, maturing thesis and antithesis that may even only come into focus after the body of work is viewed as a whole.
At the center of MK is a story of young love told from the perspective of childhood innocence. The adult interpretation would be naivete and precocity. It is a fairy tale of children told to adults by children (i.e., Anderson's childhood recollections). The children are well spoken or at least their emotional content is taken seriously and their drama is told with the same urgency as an adult's drama would be told. In other words, the perspective is squarely from their point of view. If you look at the film as a 43 year old director telling a story about twelve year olds, it is a bunch of kids with adult dialogue scripted into their mouths. But if you look at the movie experientially from a kid's point of view, their dialogue is "normal" and the maturity level is commensurate. The adults matter less than the centerpiece action of the children much like the unintelligible chatter of adults represented in the Charlie Brown series (note the dog named Snoopy employed to track down Sam). As Captain Sharp says to Sam, "You're probably smarter than me. In fact I know it." as he pours Sam another glass of beer. Sam is an equal and many times even a superior to the unsurely footed adults on New Penzance. He smokes a pipe and manages to outwit most of the search parties for a considerable time.
I like how another reviewer, Darren Mooney, described the perspective of the film as "Anderson’s hyper-active imagination is perfectly suited to the film’s childish themes. There’s an air of the absurd about the picture, as if it were the world imagined through the limitless potential of childhood. Whether it’s the impossibly balanced tree house that forms the Khaki Scout headquarters or the running jump of a man carrying a fully-grown colleague on his back, there’s a sense that the laws of physics in Anderson’s universe are entirely malleable." (http://them0vieblog.com/2012/05/30/non-review-review-moonrise-kingdom/)
The fascination of the film is that it creates a mythical landscape where turmoil brews both in the meteorological sense of the world around them as well as the imperfection of adult dissatisfaction as evidenced by the passionless marriage of the Bishops (Murray & McDormand) or the forlorn heart of Captain Sharp (B. Willis) or the stuck adolescence of Scout Master Ward (Norton) who seeks self-confirmation through the quasi-authoritarian leadership of pre-teens. But in the idealized romance between Suzy and Sam, their eternal love, as childish as it would seem in the "real world" is all that matters in the chaos that brims all around them. As adults in the real world we know love is not all you need. Love requires many factors both alchemical as well as practical for it to bloom. But in the mythical realm of New Penzance and in the young minds of untainted passion, love is enough since the concepts of mortgages, job loss, divorces, and all the other messy affairs of banal adulthood have yet to sully their curiosity and zest for life.
The Khaki Scouts contrast an illusory veneer of order between man against the untamed wilds of nature and in a larger sense, it is man's attempt to put order to a universe that is incomprehensibly tumultuous and disordered. Nonetheless, the attempt to put faith in righting chaos, trusting first love, or paying homage to "first truths" is the charm of humanity and the charm of childhood experiences. As a young mind, all is yet possible and that is a beautiful mindset to have.
No comments:
Post a Comment