The French Dispatch
The second review: Whether it’s a film school students dream or just a fun afternoon watch, Anderson’s signature style remains a joy to watch if you enjoy it (or pretentious nonsense if you don’t).
I get that Wes Anderson is in some ways divisive. I don’t think many would question his ability as a director or story teller, but whether you actually like his films is a matter of personal taste.
The French Dispatch is a series of vignettes detailing articles written for a cult magazine’s final issue. Each writer walks (or in one case cycles) us through their story, we hear the edits and we see the issue come together.
The film, as is clear from the short description above, is very much a vehicle for Anderson to tell shorter form stories with an overarching connection. Each “article” plays out as a mini movie of its own and I’m sure each could have been expanded as such if he had truly want to. What’s fun about this format is that Anderson, who’s style is already known for its playfulness, can play even further within these segmented narratives.
There are notable breaks from his signature use of camera and framing, brilliant uses of colour and as always, a sheer love for film. The cast is nothing short of flawless and the casting is excellent. The scripting is a times a little bland but it is often made up for with the physicality of performances. It both satisfies and also leaves you wondering what one more “article” might have been about.
I do understand that it is not going to be for everyone. For some it may be a little less than the some of it’s parts, but when there are so many parts that are valued at so much, it would have always been hard to meet all expectations. There will always be fans of a person’s work who think the new thing isn’t has good as what has come before and that’s to be expected. We form emotional bonds with what we already know and often hope for more of the same and are disappointed when it’s not exactly what we imagined. There will also be people who may otherwise have enjoyed it but were not quite in the right space or mood for it. It certainly takes a certain headspace to enjoy a film like Anderson’s.
Beyond these groups there are also those who just don’t enjoy his work. They might appreciate its skill or consistency, but just don’t see its point or value as a style or narrative. I think there may be a view from some within this group that it might be pretentious, but I think I would caution against that opinion. I think the film, its crew and its cast are far too aware of themselves and what they are making to be pretentious. It’s camp, it’s silly. it’s witty and referential, but it knows very well what it is. It has all the charm of a small film, but the scope and production of something much larger.
People seem to have a tendency to deify individuals and make spectacle out of the idea of something rather than enjoy media and culture for what they are. If you go in to any film expecting it to be the greatest thing you’ve ever seen and come out feeling deflated, then that is not necessarily the production’s fault. If you like to enjoy films, and you go with expectations set at an appropriate level, I think you’d find it hard to not enjoy this film in some way. See it with people of a similar mind set and come out giggling at your favourite gags and sharing your favourite moments with each other. It’s a bit of fun, and maybe it need not be deeper than that.
