|
 (080323)
Wes Anderson’s new film, Asteroid City which is only a partial success,
assembles one of the most impressive ensemble casts of the year. The whole film
has the feel of a highly improvised play full of celebrity cameos and good
moments that is not quite finished. Appearing in the film are: Tom Hanks, Matt
Dillon, Scarlett Johansen, Maya Hawke (the daughter of Ethan Hawke and Uma
Thurman), Steve Carrell, Jason Schwartzman, Margot Robbie, Sophia Lills, Adrien
Brody, Edward Norton, Willem Dafoe, Tilda Swinton, Jeff Goldblum, Willem Dafoe,
and Bryan Cranston. But the most surprising cameo is Jarvis Coker (writer of the
classic Pulp song Common People) one of the most English people who ever lived
playing get this, and American cowboy. However, the seeming randomness makes it
all both more unique and less satisfying.
Asteroid City is most definitely one of the year’s most colorful films (with
lots of sky blue, orange, and turquoise) and it has some of the most beautiful
set designs and gorgeous individual shots in recent memory. Anderson undeniably
has a great distinctive directing style that he is well known for and he also is
famous for his totally unique, quirky characters. Long ago, Wes Anderson films
became their own distinctive genre.
Unfortunately, this is one case where the style is much more impressive than the
content. The film’s story is slight and not nearly as interesting as the ones in
Anderson’s classic films, The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), and Moonrise Kingdom
(2012), and The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) or even the animated Fantastic
Mr.Fox (!!!!). I also liked this much less than
his previous film,
The French Dispatch (2022) which also featured a few of the same actors such as
Adrien Brody, Tilda Swinton, and Jason Swartzman.
But still the characters here are so charming, and the dialogue is so witty, and
the look is so dazzling that is hard to not to at least partially fall under the
films spell. I may not want to see Asteroid City again right away but I would
like to really visit the fictional world it is in.
Asteroid City gets its name from a small region where the film takes place which
is remote and far away from major cities. The total population is only
eighty-seven so it is actually a town not a city. It received its name because a
meteorite crashed there five thousand years ago. So why isn’t the film called
Meteorite Town? I’m not sure except somehow Asteroid City sounds catchier and
more impressive than Meteorite Town. Many of the characters go there to attend a
kid’s science conference.
This is a very meta film (Lars Von Trier did this kind of thing much better in
Dogville,) and its movie-within a play within a movie with narration from Bryan
Cranston from Breaking Bad. The narrator tells the story of a playwright named
Conrad Earp (played by Ed Norton) and all the scenes from his point of view are
all shot in black and white. This character juggling by the same actors is all
kind of hard to follow and it might require too much effort for a casual film
viewer.
The film’s plot is set in motion when several new people arrive in the town to
witness a rare celestial event or to present their inventions at a fair. But the
actual big event that unifies most of the cast at the end is a really bizarre
appearance of a visitor from far away which is a delightfully campy scene with
intentionally fake special effects that helps redeem the film.
A widower, Augie Steenbeck (Jason Schwartzman who has made his debut in
Anderson’s Rushmore) puts his late wife’s ashes in a Tupperware bowl and heads
out to Asteroid City with his kids. Jason also plays the actor playing Augie.
Augie does not tell the kids right away that their mom is deceased to spare
their feelings. But the kids eventually guess and humor is generated because the
kids are very emotionally detached and their response to their mom’s death is
unexpectedly understated. It is said that the film is a meditation on mourning
but no one in the film shows much actual grief, it’s all internalized.
The family is on the way to visit Augie’s father (played by Tom Hanks). It’s
refreshing seeing the normally mainstream Tom Hanks (of Saving Private Ryan)
playing such an odd, slightly irritating character in a goofy movie. Hanks, “the
king of normal” is a delight in a small role portraying Steenbeck’s cantankerous
father-in-law Stanley Zek.
Scarlett Johansson (the Marvel U’s Black Widow) gives two of the film’s most
courageous and surprisingly mature performances. She plays an actress, Mercedes
(in black and white) Ford who plays Midge Campbell (in color). Midge is a famous
actress and thousands adore her, but very people love or truly understand her.
Ford’s car model name (the whole film is set in 1956) seems to be vaguely
mocking the ‘50s obsession with brand name consumerism and materialism. Also,
Wes Anderson has said her character is a combination of Marilyn Monroe (another
fabulously popular celebrity who couldn’t find love), Kim Stanley, and Joanne
Woodward.
Some sparks occur when the widower Augie has a chance meeting with Midge in a
diner. They seem to bond over their shared emotional remoteness and one point
Midge even says the killer line,” We’re two catastrophically wounded people who
don’t express the depths of our pain because we don’t want to.”
Anderson here (as with Robert Bresson) often gets his actors to under emote and
downplay all their emotional scenes which might make them hard to identify with.
Additionally, at times Anderson seems to make the film as complicated as he can
and I can almost imagine him gleefully saying “follow this I dare you.” All of
this is a bit confusing at times.
Much of the film is just weird people running into each other in random
encounters having odd dialogue exchanges. Sometime the conversations or
encounters lead to some even to plot development but other times they don’t. The
film would be more effective if it was more meaningful or if you had the sense
the story was headed somewhere or if it had dramatic weight.
Peter Bradshaw was correct when he wrote in The Guardian that the film is a “an
exhilarating triumph of pure style,” but it is not much more than that. There is
plenty here to please your eyes and some parts that will please the mind, but
very little that resonates on an emotional level.
Ultimately, I had the same reaction to this film that I have to some of Tim
Burton’s more slight work. Like Burton, Wes Anderson is fantastic at creating
whole beautiful alternative universes that the viewer can immerse themselves in
and everything on screen is put together well and looks excellent.
But also like some of Burton’s work, this film is pleasant on the eyes, but it
also feels a bit hollow. But in the end this film has great style but not nearly
enough substance. So although it is an interesting and worthwhile addition to
Anderson’s oeuvre I would hardly call it one of his best or most essential
films.
|
