WES ANDERSON’S FILMS EXUDE POST-HIPPY SENSIBILITY

Hey Dan Webster,

Just saw “The Life Aquatic” and, finally, after having seen also “Rushmore” and “The Royal Tannenbaums”, I got a take on this Wes Anderson fellow.

This is where I come from: a lit. and MFA guy, I used to believe heavily in novels, story line and plot, i.e. “making sense of existence”, “telling a story about life”, “moralizing”. But existentialism began to wear away at that sensibility.

Next... in comes my current interest in science, specially, evolutionary psychology where the clinical and experimental study of consciousness is exploding. From what we now know of how consciousness evolved and how it works, we know that each of our brains more or less experiences incoming data as a raw series of unconnected bits of electro/chemical impulse and that consciousness emerges in the process of making connections between bits of info in order that each of us human animals can survive and pass on our genes. There is no central place in the brain where all the info goes to be processed and where decisions are made. No god, no continuity of conscience, no overarching morality. In short no sign of a soul or central processor. We are animals. RELATIVITY writ large. Just survival.

Wes is showing us a 21st Century world without strong story lines and without too much rational explanation. It truly is an absurd but practical reality we experience when we get to studying the processes of consciousness.

Wes Anderson’s films make sense of the hippy generation. They’re post hippy. They come out of the sensibilities of the Sixties. Very few films have made sense of those days because of costuming (how quaint) and the difficulty in giving a rational (in dialogue and narrative) explanation of a fundamental psychological change in sensibility and reality. I feel clearly that’s how Wes Anderson’s films “feel”.

Wes’s reality is definitely a post “hippy (happy) days” reality. Families fragmented, boys looking for dads and husbands and wives playing around with other people, divorces, the old, manly spirit of adventure reduced to a sort of posturing Costeau [sp], women in charge of families while man/boys play around at survival. In short, no story line but lots of human interaction and emotional moments and survival of the bloodline stuff. Sexuality underpinning, as evolution would predict.

On and on and on.... I’m in that part of understanding Wes where my mind just rackets around and goes “wow” every once in awhile, experiencing the kind of reality that makes Oliveria quiver like a leaf in autumn in a wind storm.

I intend to put this letter on my Blog too.

Geo


MOVIES

This week I checked five movies out of the library:

New Waterford Girl
Series 7: The Contenders
Cronos
8 Women
La Belle Noiseuse

The best of the five was the satirical look at reality shows in “Series 7: The Contenders”. In this one, the contestants try to kill one another while cameras follow them around, with minute by minute interviews, checking in on how they feel and getting their comments on the spot. This should become a cult classic, I’d hope.

The next best was the French film, “La Belle Noiseuse” which I thought did a wonderful job of recreating the extended process by which a painting is created. A two reel job, the director spends a lot of time following the artist around in his studio while he picks up a brush and drops it to pick up another and following him as he throws a cushion aside and selects a stool for the model to sit on. Or just stands musing before he throws a line on canvass. We watch him pin paper to a frame for drawing and arrange the model’s body with fierce motions that cause her pain.

Next “Cronos” for its seriocomic effects, specially the part Frankenstein, part vampire hero.

“8 Women” was a mixed bag for me, though the slow unraveling of the motives and the secrets of the women was interestingly done. That kept me watching. However, the film’s suicidal ending was ridiculous.

“The Waterford Girl” was another absurdist film, though not absurd enough to make it interesting. Supposedly, other critics found Liane Balaban’s debut film performance as Mooney Pottie (15 year old who moons around—get it) a success. Once or twice I did feel her angst, but the silly premise that she was a girl of great talent weakened any effect her character could have. I thought someone so inept could not have the natural strength which would lead to artistic success. Though Mooney’s adventures with her friend, Lou, are supposed to show how she grew into a more mature teen, I thought most of the adventures were rather insignificant.
_____________________________________________________________

"Fame lost its appeal for me when I went into a public restroom and an autograph seeker handed me a pen and paper under the stall door." —Marlo Thomas