I can't work out this film at all, especially amidst the rampant and unapologetic apologism that seems to permeate how I approach problem films. If you present a film that was received badly to me, my reaction is almost always to defend it. If it goes on like this this blog will be getting a valid reputation of some sort! Blast.
Now let's put that aside and begin. 'The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou' is a film by Wes Anderson, the man with the style and atmosphere all his own in a world of contemporary mediocrity. He is one of the few living directors I actually respect, but his movies can be a bit sweary, except for two that I love: 'The Fantastic Mister Fox' and 'Moonrise Kingdom'. 'The Life Aquatic' definitely falls into the 'too sweary' category for me, but it also ticks another box that rarely gets ticked, the box that 'Joe Versus The Volcano' pioneered here at 'The Quirky Muffin': the category of being 'categorically misunderstood'. Just as 'Joe Versus The Volcano' is misunderstood because people are expecting a conventional narrative, so is 'The Life Aquatic'. Neither of them are conventional narratives, but are closer to being filmic versions of poetry perhaps? Or epic verse? Or mythology?
Parenthetically, mythology is distinct from fiction both because it is usually created in deep history and is involved mightily with archetypes. I'm not qualified to talk too much about archetypes but they are fundamental ideas, stories and characters that form the building blocks for all derived fiction. Archetypes appeal to us on a whole other level than derived works, even if an entirely archetypal story might be very simple.
So, is 'The Life Aquatic' mythology? No, but it's definitely something far more in line with verse than prose. It's a fascinating watch. It's the story of seagoing documentary maker and explorer Steve Zissou and his team, clearly modelled on Jacques Cousteau although every such reference on the commentary is bleeped out, and his struggles with the decline in interest in his films and adventures which is mirrored by his own growing lack of engagement in those pursuits. There is also piracy, a love story, and some redemption but let's not layer in too much here.
This is a fascinating film, lyrical in nature, but somewhat undermined by its own language. It's harder to make a sweet movie with the swearing, although that's my prejudice and not others. Visually it's stunning, as stunning as any of Anderson's films, and features the now rare Bill Murray leading man performance. If you like the enigma that is Bill Murray then this is a movie for you, but it's also an enigma of a movie in itself. 'The Life Aquatic' didn't do well, which is completely predictable upon viewing. It's not what people expect it to be, and the eradication of an explicit reference to Cousteau probably makes it harder still. It's funny, and touching, but also human and sporting a massive number of red bobble hats, all adrift in a poetical sea of context. There are masses of things to like, as well as a multitude of things to look at and wonder at how they got there. Does that make it more real or more ridiculous? The stylisation is spectacular, reminding me of my own love for such things, and entirely typical of Anderson.
The late and apparently great Roger Ebert and I never agree on anything, except on 'Joe Versus The Volcano' and 'The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou'. Could either of us recommend this film wholeheartedly in a review? No, but you absolutely should watch them anyway, because they're utterly different to everything around them and in a world of movies which all tend to be the same, that's an essential experience. However a warning: Angelica Houston is in this film so beware if you can't handle that creepiness!
O.
PS Not too apologetic after all. It's a good film, or at least it's a good something!
No comments:
Post a Comment