Quote:
Originally posted by Filmmaker
Originally posted by slade:
Filmmaker said:
"The script is meandering, and too self-aware of its attempts to be witty and stylistically unique."
I'm wondering if you can give some examples of these complaints?
Unfortunately, I am a full-time worker AND full-time student, so I have neither the time nor inclination to involve myself in a lengthy dissertation on any film, much less one I have no great affections for. Additionally, it's been at least two years since I last suffered through the film, so specific highlights for criticism elude me. Suffice it to say, it is my opinion on the overall tone of the screenplay. Some people view it as genius, I see it as too self-aware and glib.
Originally posted by SolidSnakeASS:
Oh yeah, and Filmmaker, Rushmore makes Close Encounter of the Third Kind look like dog-food.
What are you trying to make me do--laugh so hard I cough up Coca-Cola through my nose?! Jesus wept...may you never get your hands on a film camera...
|
I am always amused by your arguments when you resort to using the excuse of being a full time student and worker. You have brought it up on a number of occasions, and it's always when you don't feel the need to justify your argument. Not that you're not either a full time student or a worker, but you seem to have plenty of time to go into detail on other more mundane topics. I respect the fact that you probbaly would have little time for argument, but since you never demonstrate a lack of time for discussion in other topics, this seems more like an excuse than anything.
I can always understand an objection to "Rushmore" in certain ways. Some people can't deal with the fact that Max is so obnoxious. Some people think it's "weird," which I think says more about the people watching it than anything. Some people don't have the right sense of humor to gel with the type of humor Anderson and Wilson employ. Some people don't like the fact that the plot is rather scattered, and sometimes non-exisistant.
Personally I love the film for so many reasons I could hardly list them all. It's certainly the only time I've seen a film in which a 2nd grade kid was in every scene, mostly so he can be a motif. It has some of the best uses of 2.35 that I've ever seen. In some scenes, Anderson seems to be parodying the use of the wide frame, and it's excessive and unlifelike wideness (specifically, the slow motion shot when Max is turning around at the end of the Serpico performance, and he has cotton in his nose, and the shot in the trailer where Brian Cox is in the foreground and Bill Murray in the background, saying of Max "He's one of the worst students we've got"). Every little detail of the film waits to be discovered for the first time, it needs to be seen more than a few times to be fully appreciated. But the details don't shout at you, they just wait in the background, waiting for your eye to glaze over them.
Some things I couldn't explain why I find them funny. Why do I laugh when Mr. Littlejeans is laughing through the play at the end? Why is it funny the way that kid says "Um, it's a jellyfish," when Bill Murray asks him what he's painting? Why is it utterly hilarious that the motif kid is dancing by himself in the last shot? Why is it funny when the way he swims away from Bill Murray at the bottom of the pool?
One of my biggest problems with "The Royal Tennenbaums" was how much it wanted to show off. A friend of mine summed up his feelings, and he seemed to get right at the root of the problem I had as well. He said, "The Royal Tennenbaums is trying to be weird, but Rushmore was organically weird." That's the root of what is so successful about Rushmore. I believe that it is the only film I have ever seen in which each directorial decision seemed to be perfect, as if no other decision could be better than what was already chosen. Anderson is a genius at casting, writing, and musical choices. My only hope is that he doesn't fall in love with himself for the next film, which is the problem with TRT.
Oh, and Filmmaker, it might be time to watch CE3K again. The movie is still good, but its naivete is almost disturbing. Even Spielberg, in the documentary, points to a huge flaw that he can't understand 25 years later. How should we feel about a man who abandons his wife and kids (they leave him, but he barely seems to notice) to go look for a mountain he has visions of? CE3K still acheives the awe and wonder it was after, but it seems so removed from reality (and I'm not talking about believing in UFO's) at this point, as to be kind of a fairy tale for your parents.