Two stylized films recently released on DVD take unconventional approaches to love stories. In both cases, the ambition slightly outstrips the execution, but both “Safety Not Guaranteed” and “Moonrise Kingdom” held my attention and are worth a rental.
The premise of “Safety Not Guaranteed” will make journalists laugh the same way doctors laugh at “Grey’s Anatomy.” A Seattle magazine writer and two interns are assigned to travel to Ocean City, Wash., to investigate the story behind an ad for a time-travel partner. (It’s not the time-travel story that’s funny; it’s the outdated concept that a magazine could afford to send three people on an all-expenses-reimbursed long-term human-interest piece.) Jake Johnson (Nick on “New Girl”) is the reporter and Aubrey Plaza (April on “Parks and Recreation”) is one of the interns; both play slightly more ambitious versions of their TV characters.
As Darius, Plaza does her deadpan thing that works so well on “Parks and Rec,” but it’s too understated here. Her love interest, the prospective time-traveler Kenneth, is played by Mark Duplass, who has been one of the busiest guys in Hollywood this past year; he, too, plays his role too close to the vest. Watching the film, I felt like it was building toward something beyond the unconventional love story told through I series of kinda-cute little training and campfire scenes. But no, this really is the central thread.
Meanwhile, Johnson’s character, Jeff, rekindles something with an old flame, and the third member of the investigative team, the computer-nerdy Arnau (Karan Soni), learns a few basic women-attracting skills courtesy of Jeff, for whom it all comes so easy. These plotlines wrap up rather abruptly; it’s only in looking back on the film that I see what writer Derek Connolly and director Colin Trevorrow were going for: A sad, sweet lament about regrets from our past. However, it’s too understated to make a strong statement.
I didn’t love “Moonrise Kingdom,” but I kinda liked it. Almost everyone I know thinks writer-director Wes Anderson (who co-writes this film with Roman Coppola) is an unqualified genius. I’ve had his works pushed on me so much by friends (“OK, fine, but you’ll really like THIS one”) that I’ve actually seen a fair amount of Anderson’s oeuvre without actually liking any of it. I find it so stylized that it’s unemotional to me, whereas I think fans — such as my friends who’ve seen “Moonrise Kingdom” three or four times — do connect with his work emotionally.
I say all this to establish that me liking “Moonrise Kingdom” is high praise. I see what Anderson was trying to do — capture the pure, innocent essence of first love through 12-year-old lead characters, orphan Sam and lonely-in-a-big-family Suzy. The actors, for the record, are newcomers Jared Gilman (who, with his glasses, resembles Corey Feldman in “Stand By Me”) and Kara Hayward (who looks like Emma Watson), but really they come off more like action figures that Anderson is playing with. It’s as if he doesn’t care that the lead duo, plus the majority of the other kid actors, can’t really act at all, because it’s not that kind of movie; there’s supposed to be a stiff awkwardness to all Anderson movies (for some reason).
Still, in part because it’s a simple story set in a simpler time and place (the rose-colored-glasses version of the 1960s, on a sparsely populated 16-mile island off the East Coast), it works anyway. Anderson gives us plenty of meaningful montages and scenes: The exchange of letters between Sam and Suzy, their meeting in the meadow, the flashback to their first meeting in a (stylized, natch) theatrical production, the almost-parodic camping scenes where Sam uses all of his expertise from Khaki Scouts, and Suzy’s love of quaint old storybooks. Perhaps the most iconic image is the duo, both in their underwear, clinging desperately to each other when Suzy’s dad (Bill Murray) literally picks up the tent around them. They just love each other, the image says; unfortunately, the nasty adults (the world at large) are going to work to take that one beautiful thing out of their depressing, mundane lives.
Not all of the adult characters are caricatures (although Tilda Swinton’s government official, self-identified as “Social Services,” certainly is). Bruce Willis, of all people, has a sweet mini-arc — he’s a sad bachelor who’s been in love once (“She didn’t love me back”) who connects with Sam. Is it possible that 12-year-olds could be in love? The answer, in the context of this movie, is: It doesn’t matter. Their love is the same love that Willis had for the girl who didn’t love him back. It’s pure, it’s good, it’s uncomplicated. It may not be real-world real, but it’s certainly movie-world real.
Neither of these films can quite be called comedies, although both have moments of silliness and weirdness. (Indeed, searching for a word to describe “Safety Not Guaranteed’s” Kenneth, an almost-girlfriend played by Kristen Bell settles on “weird.”) And neither is a tearjerker, although “Moonrise” is the prettier, more sensitive film, both in its colorful look and in the omnipresent score by Mark Mothersbaugh.
Between the two movies, I liked “Safety Not Guaranteed” a bit more, just because Anderson films are such work for me. But I admit “Moonrise Kingdom” is the meatier film, and one that will be talked about and analyzed for years to come. I can see why people connect with it and why it will end up on many year-end top 10s. It didn’t turn me into an Anderson fan (sorry), but at least I get the hype — sort of — and if fans want to explain to me in the comment threads why they think the auteur is a genius, I’ll listen.
Comments
Great subject, John. Wes Anderson is truly a polarizing figure. You either love him or hate him. Or as his diehard fans would say, you either understand great cinematic art or you don’t … lol.
I am a Wes Anderson fan. Yet I don’t think he is an “unqualified genius.” Yet I do feel The Royal Tenenbaums is genius. From the pace to the soundtrack to the bevy of stars sharing the screen but also shining individually in a beautiful tail of an effed up family, it’s one of my top-three movies of all time (The other two — The Breakfast Club and Big).
And I think Rushmore — I’ll admit I didn’t like it at first, but have grown very fond of it in its reruns, eventually prompting me to buy it — and Fantastic Mr. Fox are on the cusp of being one of those existential flicks like “American Splendor”, “Sideways” or “Garden State” (and yes, I see that two of those are Paul Giamatti reels, a favorite actor of mine).
So where does “Moonrise Kingdom” rank in his inconsistent — yet his detractors would say stunningly consistent — scripts? I really enjoyed it. Yet I couldn’t enjoy it fully because I watched it with Jenelle, who was having trouble with the pacing and few-and-far-between dialogue. I almost felt like I had to explain it to her, which is just no fun. Also, and I think you mentioned this quite eloquently, sometimes you shouldn’t have to explain movies. Either they’re good or not.
But MY lOVE for the movie stems from the emotional attachment I felt to the adult figures — the characters played by Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bull Murray and Francis McDormand, who I just adored in “Almost Famous.” I felt like these kids were going for “it”, living life on a whim and to the fullest. Yet the adults had settled and/or were unfulfilled or underappreciated. The message I got was: Fuk what convention tells you, reach for your dreams. And if love is involved, nothing else matters. Which is quite beautiful to me.
As for “Safety Not Guaranteed”, I loved it. I have a mancrush on it. I was sad when it ended. I think your cynicism of its portrait of journalists is warranted, yet not a deal breaker. And yes, the character development is limited — I, too, could have done for more Aubrey Plaza accion, or more April from P & R.
With that said, the love story btw her and Kenneth was well set up. Was it played too close to the vest? Not to me. It’s not the traditional love tail. And I really loved the campfire scene, especially the song and raw honesty of it all.
And like you, I love “New Girl”. So Jake Johnson’s character I wanted to love immediately, yet he was also understated. But the end product was really enjoyable. Yes, it had the potential to be a lasting favorite of mine but fell short. But even so, I think the simplicity and abrupt ending of it all was enough.# Posted By Seth Stringer | 1/6/13 6:54 PM
Well said. Basically, Wes Anderson makes movies in a specific style. If you think the style is cool, you’ll like his movies. If you don’t — either through being impatient with the style or giving it a chance but finding it pretentious or distracting — there’s a ceiling placed on how much you’ll like his movies. If the script for “Moonrise Kingdom” was the same, and the general look of the film was the same, yet it was directed by someone who’s focus was getting good performances and who de-emphasized the quirkiness and trusted viewers to find it on their own, I think “MK” could potentially be a masterpiece (I would love to see it remade like this someday). Drowned in the Wes Anderson style, it loses something and gains nothing, in my opinion. But it’s just a matter of taste; I tend to be drawn to good writing and acting as a foundation, with style as a bonus. If style is the foundation of a film, I will always find it lacking. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single director I like who is driven by style more so than substance. I think we basically agree on “SNG’s” qualities; you just seem to like it a bit more than me.# Posted By John Hansen | 1/6/13 7:18 PM
That’s why “The Life Aquatic” suffered so much — style over substance. And in the end, that mantra inhibited this movie from being great also. Yet like you said, it was a flick you walk away saying, ‘I kinda enjoyed it.’
Really, Anderson’s made only one great film — The Royal Tenenbaums was the perfect marriage of style and substance. I defy you to say it didn’t fully develop an arc for each character. And “Moonrise Kingdom” fell short of “Rushmore.” So in essence, that makes it 11 years since Anderson’s made a truly great film. But even so, I’m still A Wes Anderson supporter.# Posted By Seth Stringer | 1/6/13 7:36 PM