Upcoming
Cats & Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore
Charlie St. Cloud
The Concert
The Dry Land
The Extra Man
Helen
Hugh Hefner: Playboy, Activist and Rebel
What's the Matter with Kansas?
Who Killed Nancy
Split Fox Verdict
You can respond to Fantastic Mr. Fox as an auteurist thing -- a dazzling and charming representation of the mind and spirit and stylistic exactitude of director Wes Anderson -- and as a movie you pay to see with an $8 tub of popcorn in your lap. I responded to it both ways -- in effect with two heads. Which left me feeling great and not-so-great.
I loved and worshipped the auteurist aspect -- the luscious autumnal colors, the every-other-frame movement that Anderson and his team used to create Fox's particular stop-motion look, the "moving" fox hair that resulted from this, the deadpan Anderson humor, Mr. Fox's courdoroy wardrobe, the tasteful pop-tune soundtrack (Brian Wilson's "Heroes and Villains," "The Ballad of Davy Crockett") and all the other typical Andersonian goodies. But I was unmoved and even disappointed by the campfire movie aspect.
The fact that 95% or 96% of the paying public will be responding to the latter and not caring all that much about the former (despite the fact that the elites -- guys like Kent Jones, Village Voice critic Scott Foundas, New York's David Edelstein and New Yorker critic/columnist Richard Brody, among several others -- are tickled with delight) may result in a commercial problem for 20th Century Fox, the distributor.
Edelstein calls it "a dandy's movie," and that it is. Which, as noted, is what gives my inner movie dweeb such pleasure. I intend to buy, watch and occasionally re-watch the Fantastic Mr. Fox Bluray when it comes out next year. But most American moviegoers are not dandies. They're slugs and lugs, and I know, trust me, what's going to happen when they watch it on screens this weekend.
It'll be the same reaction I was sensing from the swells last month during the London Film Festival premiere in Leicester Square. During the early stages they're going to go "yeah, yeah, this is glorious, really good, immaculate craft, wonderful colors and details" and so on, but somewhere around the 45- or 60-minute mark they're going to begin saying to themselves, "Wait a minute, what is this? Nothing's happening. It's staying on the same level."
The bottom-line thematic truth about Fantastic Mr. Fox is that it's about as deep as a Road Runner cartoon. It's all about how it looks and sounds and how they made it, and nothing about what it actually is. It's pure Wes, pure whimsy, pure style, pure technique, pure stone-skimming-across-the pond. I get it and I love it, but my inner meathead was saying "yeah, and so what?"
Based on the Roald Dahl children's book, Fantastic Mr. Fox is about the troubles and turmoils that befall a sophisticated adult fox (George Clooney's Mr. Fox) and his family (Meryl Streep, Jason Schartzman) when he decides that a life as a gentleman newspaper columnist isn't enough -- he must revert to raiding coops and eating chickens.
Mr. Fox and and his opossum friend Kylie (Wally Wolodarsky) decide to raid the farms and warehouses of three ruthless agribusiness types -- Boggis, Bunce and Bean (Michael Gambon). The story is basically about Fox and friends enjoying the upper hand against these three, and then Boggis, Bunce and Bean striking back with machine guns and John Deere super-diggers and whatnot, and then the Fox clan figuring some way around their latest maneuver, etc.
Except it's not "real." The immutable laws of probability and outcome don't apply. No foxes get killed despite ridiculous automatic-weapons odds against them. (It's a little bit like Sylvester Stallone never being winged in Rambo II.) Life can sometimes be brutal in actuality and sometimes very tough decisions have to be made, and sometimes people stumble and fall and die and go to jail, but in Fantastic Mr. Fox life is an ironic bullshit thing...a hip romp...a lightweight goof.
Mr. Fox is chicken-raiding behind the back of Mrs. Fox (Streep) as he's promised her he won't attack and slaughter any more, despite the fact that he and Mrs. Fox are shown doing a chicken-raid in the opening scene. Presumably Mr. Fox collects a handsome salary as a newspaper columnist (enough to afford a nice home inside a big tree) and when it comes to vittles he and Mrs. Fox presumably go to a fox supermarket to buy frozen chicken paties. The main point is that hunting is out.
Except none of this is explained or explored, and it struck me as more than a little bit wacko. The common lore of foxes is that of chicken-coop raiders -- it's what they do. (They actually hunt and eat rodents, snakes, you name it. They eat about 2 pounds of food each day.) So what kind of screwy-headed fox wife tells her fox husband that he has to give up chickens, like he's some kind of alcohol or gambling or oxycontin addict? I don't get it. In fact, I reject it. It's just not a very persuasive or compelling story.
I mean, what's the metaphor here? That it's cool to be a thief, or that thieves have to be true to their natures? That it's good to have family and friends to help you steal chickens and apple cider? I didn't hate the story but what is it? Nothing, really.
In short the Fantastic Mr. Fox style is great to savor in dozens of aesthetic ways, as noted, but in rudimentary terms it's just a mild-mannered outdoor Anderson picnic. It's Clooney having fun portraying a canny, urbane, ethically-challenged fox and Schwartzman doing his usual young-neurotic guy, nobody-values-me shtick. And Murray being glib and cool. And Owen Wilson coming in for a brief cameo, and Anderson voicing a weasel, and Willem Dafoe playing a rat.
Compare the whimsy in Fantastic Mr. Fox to the rich thematic delivery in WALL*E or Up or The Incredibles, and you're talking about a very minor thing. I'm sorry but the Anderson decline continues. I want that old Bottle Rocket/Rushmore current back. And if I can't have that I want more than just dandified style. I want Wes to remake Jean Luc Godard's Weekend, or make some kind of 21st Century film noir or....I don't know but some kind of bold-swan-dive-into-fresh-territory type of film.
Honestly -- if Fantastic Mr. Fox wasn't directed by Anderson and didn't feature the voices of Clooney, Streep, Schwratzman and Bill Murray (playing a badger), would anyone be paying attention to a film like this at all? I wonder.
And yet I love the way it's all been done. It's a huge kick on that level. Really. So if you can watch it from that inner sanctum and stay there and keep yourself from slipping into a sweaty and bothered state after the 45-minute mark (like me), you'll have a very cool time with it. And you can meet Kent Jones and David Edelstein and Scott Foundas and Richard Brody for drinks afterwards. Cool all around. Movie happiness is where you find it.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 12, 2009 at 8:33 AM
Essentials
comment #1
Ryansi51
says ...
cool review Wells, and I really can't wait to see this.
Posted by Ryansi51
at November 12, 2009 8:51 AM
comment #2
Masheen
says ...
good review Wells, and I really *can* wait to see this... if ever. Leaves me just as cold as Planet 51 does. It all looks very very forced to me.
Posted by Masheen
at November 12, 2009 9:25 AM
comment #3
barryegan
says ...
Posts like this make me wonder why I bother continue visiting this site. You spends hundreds of words trying to force the film into the same tired Andersonian critical cliche (there's nothing there, style over substance, Rushmore was the beginning of the end), willfully misread the subtext, and then play that beyond-irritating game that people like Hannity/Beck/Malkin are so fond of (I'm just telling it like it is, not like those elitist Film Comment nerds). Bravo. I know it wouldn't be an ideological fit per se, but based on this post's rhetoric I'm thinking you should moonlight for Big Hollywood. (I bet Breitbart hates latino pachyderms too.)
Posted by barryegan
at November 12, 2009 9:29 AM
comment #4
MrTribeca
says ...
Saw FMF last night and have to agree with your thoughts, Jeff. However, my experience differs in that there were several irritating brats in the audience, running up and down the aisle and yelling at each other across the cinema. Then the film started and they were hooked throughout.
Posted by MrTribeca
at November 12, 2009 9:34 AM
comment #5
Sean
says ...
MaryAnn Johanson, who's very bright, couldn't get past the scene in FINDING NEMO where the protagonists join the sharks at their Predators Anonymous meeting, Sharks eat things! It's what they do! How does it make any sense that they'd want to stop?
I think it's clear that the point of anthropomorphizing animals is not to make animals more human but to make characters that behave like humans more animalistic. Like Mr. Fox, I buy frozen chicken breasts rather than hunt down fowl. It's very obviously against his nature, just like it's obviously against a shark's nature to try to view fish as "friends, not food." Transpose it into the human world, where we have social constructs based on how we behave and treat others, and those "obviouslies" fade away and you get to look afresh at the different kinds of domestication being considered. Mrs. [X] thinks that because Mr. [X] has a successful job that brings home sufficient income that he should buy risky behavior [Y] behind him despite the fact that, as Jeff and everyone knows, "it's what [Xes] do," and "what kind of screwy-headed ... wife tells her ... husband that he has to give up [Y]?"
Do I really have to explain this? This is Metaphor 101.
Posted by Sean
at November 12, 2009 9:38 AM
comment #6
Ryansi51
says ...
barryegan- grind that ax dude, grind it good.
Posted by Ryansi51
at November 12, 2009 9:38 AM
comment #7
Airman6563
says ...
Your review, Mr. Wells reminds me of a line from the poochie episode of the simpsons.
"So, you want a realistic, down-to-earth show... that's completely off-the-wall and swarming with magic robots?"
In other words, you wanted a stop motion puppet animated movie about laws of probabilities and research driven information about the behavioral hunting pattern of foxes? It didn't bother you that animals talked to each other and their human foes, and that they had their own law offices. But you were upset because they could out-run bullets?
I get that the "reality" of the movie didn't work for you, I have seen it twice now and personally, it gets richer and richer each time. I'm sure another critic said it more eloquently before me but I feel the portrait of marriage this movie presents is right up there with any top pixar piece.
I also don't understand your concern about the financial possibilities of this movie. Isn't everybody but your and your close circle of friends an "eloi", therefore, wouldn't they be less inclined to explore the thematic reality the way you have. What is an inner-meat head anyway? I mean, what's the metaphor here?
Lastly, please stop with the "Wes Anderson needs to stop making Wes Anderson movies" argument, thanks.
Posted by Airman6563
at November 12, 2009 9:42 AM
comment #8
Industrial Pumps
says ...
I partially agree with you and partially agree with some of the comments. I do like that the film is rich in aesthetics and that is definitely a major point of consideration when evaluating your opinion of it. At the same time I do get a little annoyed when there is really no point and nothing substantial happens. And as for the realisim, I think you have to suspend your disbelief as soon as you walk into a movie starring talking animated animals with office jobs. No big deal, it doesn't have to be realistic. -Tom
Posted by Industrial Pumps
at November 12, 2009 10:05 AM
comment #9
mtgilchrist
says ...
i generally agree with airman, at least in terms of wondering what you were really expecting from an adaptation of a story about talking foxes; saying that this movie doesn't obey the laws of probability or physics is like saying i didn't like no country for old men because there weren't enough werewolves in it. and box office prognosticating notwithstanding, why does it matter that some people won't get it or be into it? anderson has never made a movie that could be considered even close to "mainstream," and it's evident from the film's existential navelgazing and its self-referential construction that this wasn't meant to be a conventional crowd-pleaser either. "just saying" that it's noncommercial in the midst of a review of its artistic merits suggests that the fact it may not play to the people you think are stupid is sufficient reason to say it's not that good. and ultimately, you've spent months defending and chasing down and talking to wes anderson any time you can to offer support for his auteur vision and then don't like what his vision produces, over the course of (apparently) his last four movies? the job is to review what it is, not what you want it to be, which means if you know anderson makes dollhouse movies, don't expect transformers 2, and anderson has made it absolutely clear (evidenced by your thorough documentation of his film up until now) that this one is only different because it uses stop motion hipsters instead of real ones.
Posted by mtgilchrist
at November 12, 2009 10:06 AM
comment #10
lehigh
says ...
It might be worth noting that Edelstein has never liked a Wes Anderson movie until this one. I think the same is true of Stephanie Zacharek of Salon.
Anyway, add her to the cool list. As well as Owen Gleiberman, Glenn Kenny, Peter Travers, Ethan Alter, Pete Hammond, Todd McCarthy . . .
I doubt it will be a gigantic hit. But it's got the highest rotten tomatoes meter so far of any Anderson movie. And, I'd bet it will be either his biggest hit ever, or at least his biggest hit next to Tennenbaums.
Just saying I wonder if it will only appeal to the 'cool' elites.
Posted by lehigh
at November 12, 2009 10:13 AM
comment #11
Eloi Manning
says ...
It looks fun and is being marketed as a broad comedy so I'm sure it'll get an audience. If that misery-fest Where the Wild Things Are can get to $70m, so can Fox. It really should surpass that.
Posted by Eloi Manning
at November 12, 2009 10:21 AM
comment #12
Movie fan09
says ...
I want that old Bottle Rocket/Rushmore current back. And if I can't have that I want more than just dandified style.
Jeff, that will never happen without Owen Wilson.
Owen is the John Lennon to Wes' Paul McCartney.
He had a bit of self destruction bent, and that gave Wes' style some weight, without Owen it just becomes this movie..which seemingly isn't bad, but it's not real, it doesn't matter.
Posted by Movie fan09
at November 12, 2009 10:31 AM
comment #13
jmevans
says ...
does anybody else hate when a reviewer breaks down the plot too much in their review? peter travers does this quite a bit, and it drives me crazy. i'm forced to start skimming lines in order to not read a step by step account of how the movie plays out.
i was enjoying your review Jeff until you started to do the very same thing. i want to read a review that projects some insightful and intelligent observations. if plot needs to be addressed, so be it, but you gotta keep it at a minimum. i want the story to play out in front of my eyes at the theater, not when i'm reading the film review.
just something to keep in mind moving forward. i wish ALL movie critics would keep this in mind.
Posted by jmevans
at November 12, 2009 10:54 AM
comment #14
arturobandini2
says ...
Give Jeffrey a break, everybody. It's obvious that he really wants to love this movie. But he can't, and he's trying to figure out why. At least he's being honest.
There's a word that my generation used to use frequently to dismiss Anderson's type of aesthetic, a word that flashes in my brain every time I watch one of his movies. Oddly, I've never seen that word juxtaposed next to his name in print. Not anywhere. And that word, interestingly enough, is ... precious.
Posted by arturobandini2
at November 12, 2009 11:40 AM
comment #15
Muscle McGurk
says ...
I liked this idea better when it was called Wind in the Willows.
I guess there's no toads in this one so it's, you know... different.
Posted by Muscle McGurk
at November 12, 2009 12:42 PM
comment #16
Gordon27
says ...
"It's all about how it looks and sounds and how they made it, and nothing about what it actually is. It's pure Wes, pure whimsy, pure style, pure technique, pure stone-skimming-across-the pond."
So, just another Wes Anderson movie then?
Oh, wait, I forgot, 'Darjeeling' had subtext; you see, the "baggage" that he was carrying around was actually *emotional* baggage.
Posted by Gordon27
at November 12, 2009 2:45 PM
comment #17
YRG
says ...
Great review, but I wish you asked Anderson if this was his intention when you had access instead of the anti-2012 CG question. (http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/10/full_fox_press.php)
Posted by YRG
at November 12, 2009 3:04 PM
comment #18
frankbooth
says ...
Slugs and Lugs was my favorite show. Is the movie version still in development hell?
Posted by frankbooth
at November 12, 2009 3:04 PM
comment #19
Jesse Perry
says ...
Haven't seen it yet, so won't add too much. Just wanted to say that I thought this was a really well-written review.
Posted by Jesse Perry
at November 12, 2009 4:22 PM
comment #20
BanksAreForRivers
says ...
I haven't seen this movie yet, so I'm kinda walking in the dark on this one, but...
It sounds like the problem here is that through out the story it never feels like there's anything at stake. There is superficially, but he doesn't drive it home, doesn't make you believe it. If this is what you mean, you're probably right, because though I haven't seen this one, it's been increasingly evident in his work since Royal Tennenbaums. He works stakes into the story, but you never really buy that anything is at stake at all.
In Rushmore, I really felt something going on with the relationships and that the characters actions really, truly mattered to them. They were doing what they had to do, they were compelled. I bought it completely. The tension was emotional, visceral even. It was there in Tennenbaums too, but less so. In Life Aquatic it was almost completely absent, but for that one shot of Bill Murray in the sub, staring out the window at the shark that ate his friend, eyes red and tears on his face. But that was one shot in the whole movie and for me it wasn't enough. There was nothing at all in Darjeeling like this. This sounds like the same deal. It's no fun watching a story unfold when you can't shake the feeling that nothing really matters to the characters involved. It's not that his aesthetic is overwhelming, it's that the emotional intensity, the stuff that draws you into the world he's created, the stuff that makes you care about what happens, is completely underwhelming, even absent at times. Maybe that's what Owen Wilson brought to the table as a writing collaborator. Maybe not, but I am curious.
Am I close?
Posted by BanksAreForRivers
at November 12, 2009 9:23 PM
comment #21
scooterzz
says ...
so transparent....i think you can now mark the london junket 'paid in full'.....
Posted by scooterzz
at November 12, 2009 10:00 PM
comment #22
paulavery
says ...
I don't know for sure if this has been posted yet or not but I found this very interesting...
http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-11-awards-campaign-2009/posts/exclusive-watch-wes-anderson-act-out-the-fantastic-mr-fox
Posted by paulavery
at November 13, 2009 6:11 AM
comment #23
lipranzer
says ...
I didn't feel any dissatisfaction at all while watching it - except for maybe the wolf scene, which felt out of place - but then again, I like Anderson.
Posted by lipranzer
at November 13, 2009 2:25 PM
comment #24
Circumvrent
says ...
Just saw it, and while I loved Jeff's review, I wildly disagree with it - this is the best he's been since TENENBAUMS. Unlike AQUATIC and DARJEELING, this is accessible enough that you don't need 2-4 viewings to absorb it all. I'm eager to see it again.
One minor quibble with Jeff's review: Mrs. Fox clearly wants him to stop raiding chicken coops because they're starting a family, which makes total sense.
I always thought it had a really ballsy message for a kids movie, or any movie really:
SPOILER
It was interesting that Mr. Fox is heralded for basically abandoning its values - he gives up being a wild animal, domesticates himself, and is stuck raiding high-end supermarkets instead of the chicken coops that are his natural habitat - I can't think of a film, especially a children's film that ever presented compromising who you are and everything you stand for as a positive.
END SPOILERS
Posted by Circumvrent
at November 13, 2009 10:07 PM
comment #25
Circumvrent
says ...
One more note:
SPOILERS
The end note of the film is especially interested considering what a ball-buster Anderson must be in real life. If I were to interview him, the first question I'd ask would be whether or not he sees the end as a triumph or a defeat.
END SPOILERS
Posted by Circumvrent
at November 13, 2009 10:09 PM
comment #26
arentin
says ...
Great post nice info, thank you for post it
Cerita Campur Aduk Arentin
Posted by arentin
at February 1, 2010 12:19 AM
comment #27
free online games
says ...
Hi blogger, thank you so much for delivering this post! I found it very useful. Take care, !!
Posted by free online games
at March 18, 2010 12:27 PM
comment #28
dd
says ...
MaryAnn Johanson, who's very bright, couldn't get past the scene in FINDING NEMO where the protagonists join the sharks at their Predators Anonymous meeting, Sharks eat things! It's what they do! How does it make any sense that they'd want to stop?
Designer Handbags
Posted by dd
at May 11, 2010 2:21 AM
Post a comment