RSS 2.0The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
“Jacques Cousteau meets The Royal Tenenbaums” would’ve been the appropriate catchphrase for this movie. Director and writer Wes Anderson (The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore) steadily continues in the direction he took with his previous movies, where he combines compelling imagery with absurd situations and subdued humour. Although Anderson’s craftsmanship is undisputable, his movies are an acquired taste. But for once I’m not a gourmand here.
In many ways, this movie reflects the two aforementioned movies: we see a large part of the cast of The Royal Tenenbaums, complemented with the lead actor from Rushmore, Bill Murray. The Life Aquatic has the same detached feel but takes things a notch further by intensifying the imagery, which is an integral part of the story. Instead of shooting scenes which are compliant to the story and actors, Anderson likes to create a rigidly shot tableau vivant in which the characters behave in a rather absurd and contradictory manner. It’s this paradox that creates the alienating feel which sets the movie’s universe just outside that of the real world. The humour is to be found in these absurd situations with their subtle references and tongue-in-cheek performances. You’ll never see completely sane people in these movies, since they would stand out like a sore thumb and subsequently become the freaks.
Despite all its funny references to the documentaries of oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, this movie caves in on its own complex storyline. We are introduced to too many characters, all with their own peculiarities and background and the intricate relationships they maintain with each other. Other than just being plain absurd, it’s not clear what this movie is about. Sure, the story of Steve Zissou (Murray) being a washed up oceanographer with a shark-eaten colleague, a bad marriage and meeting his long lost son is obvious, but the underlying message (if there is one) is not easily grasped. Murray is his usual self as we have seen him in Lost In Translation and Rushmore: stoic, subdued and sarcastic. The rest of the cast is adequate from the movie’s point of view. Only Cate Blanchett’s performance rubbed me the wrong way with yet again a too thickly set and slight over-the-top performance. You’d almost wish that first choice Gwyneth Paltrow had made the bill.
Undoubtedly, many people will like this movie, and there is much to like: the great cinematography, the silly costumes, funny references, absurd scenes and my personal favourite: Seu Jorge as crewmember Pelé Dos Santos who plays old David Bowie songs throughout the whole movie, all sung in Portuguese. But as I stated before, I am not a fan of these kind of movies. I didn’t like Rushmore one bit and The Royal Tenenbaums was quite nice, but too unbalanced. And before people say that this is the point; I can appreciate the craftsmanship and love with which it was made, but it’s not the kind of movie that sucks you in. You’re left too detached from it and remain an outside onlooker who questions himself whether he did get the movie or not.
paco (89 posts)Certified movie phreak and conspiracy theorist.
10 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Lately I’d been thinking about Jacques Cousteau. His name just seemed to keep coming up in conversations. Was it because the latest film by director, Wes Anderson, pays the famous Sea Explorer homage? Or is it simply a wave of renewed interest in ocean life that floats in the collective consciousness this year? For whatever reason, The Life Aquatic is a wonderful film for both those who grew up on the documentaries of Cousteau, as well as those few on this planet who had never heard of the great Frenchman. By the way….it’s a comedy.
Without going into too much depth, the film is essentially the misadventures of project Zissou on their search for the mysterious Jaguar Shark. What makes it a thoroughly entertaining and moving film is the way all characters have been so well developed. By the time you are half way through the film, there’s a sense that you know and really care about all these people. None are perfect, most screw up half the time, but that’s who they are and that’s o.k… These are believably absurd characters living the almost surreal, Life Aquatic.
This film made me laugh, a lot, while at the same time having something more to say about human nature and life in general. I reminded me of my youth, when I would watch those Jacques Cousteau films, with wide eyes of wonder and think how cool it would be to live on the sea. Where Cousteau was about the closet thing to a real super hero adventurer most kids of my generation had, the character of Steve Zissou represents an off camera, more human, flawed version, that is every bit as admirable. With the character of Steven Zissou, Bill Murray gives a preformance which is touching, yet not sentimental and illustrates a timeless heroic character. The Life Aquatic inspires one to explore that remarkable capacity of human beings, to become more than the sum of ourselves.
Comment by denise — Mon March 7, 2005 @ 14:39Well, that’s an interesting way of looking at it. Luckily, this movie gives ample room for such interpretation.
However, the flaws of Steve Zissou are also a direct reference to Jacques Cousteau. The French oceanographer was also heavily critisized for the methods he used when filming his documentaires. That’s why we see Zissou stage certain ‘spontaneous’ events and sell them as real (and that’s why his popularity is dwindling). Cousteau was also accussed of this and for not being so ‘ecologically friendly’ all the time.
I don’t know if Anderson has some personal connection with the work of Cousteau, but these references are quite critical and more accurate than they initially appear to be.
Comment by Paco — Mon March 7, 2005 @ 16:20Is it me, or was this a lot of crap and a really messy screenplay. The acting performances are a-okay, but I don’t know: it did hardly anything to me…
Comment by arjan — Fri April 22, 2005 @ 12:48I see you prefer to give the condensed version.
Comment by Paco — Fri April 22, 2005 @ 13:54LOL
I don’t know. I think most people are flawed (Jacques Cousteau included). Even super-heroes. The geeky kids in school really did look up to people like Cousteau – or other documentary makers like the guy who studied the Kung bushmen or the guy who lived with the Eskimos (Lee and Flaherty, I think they were). The maps, the pointers, the scientific equipment – that was like pure erotica to me, as a kid. If it wasn’t, to you, then you probably didn’t get the soft porn for geeks subtext of this film.
And even the ecologically sensitive occasionally lose it with “the environment,” unless they are completely robotic politically correct lameasses. I don’t think that’s something shown often enough movies.
Anyway, I can see where it wouldn’t be to everyone’s tastes.
Comment by Melisande Rupert — Sun May 15, 2005 @ 8:53Well, I loved it. There, someone has to say it. I actually didn’t love The Tennenbaums much, but the subtle humour and sarcasm and good dialogue put me in a good mood. I used to loathe Bill Murray in the 80′s, but not anymore. I like his new calmness.
I can imagine people not liking this. Perhaps I was in the right frame of mind for it… just as I sometimes hate films that everyone insists are great… could have been the wrong frame of mind.
The soundtrack, especially the score by Mark Mothersbaugh, was excellent.
Comment by suzero — Fri May 20, 2005 @ 22:58Hmmm… I didn’t like it or didn’t get or whatever. Stopped the movie half way ‘cos I had this crazy feeling I was missing out on just about all the ‘jokes’.
Comment by punkmachine — Mon May 23, 2005 @ 10:16Man, this movie sucked, if it was ment to be a comedy, in my opinion. Humor is relative, I know. But I can’t stop thinking that this kind of movies is made for people who want to feel like an intellectual. They ‘so-called’ ‘get’ the movie. They (act/want to) feel more superb and lofty than the common movieviewer. Who thinks that the jokes just aren’t funny.
I’m big fan of Bill Murray and I loved the old documentaries of jaques cousteau. But I didn’t liked this movie at all. Don’t get me wrong; the pictures, warddrobes were great and the camera-technics also, but it’s intention was to be a comedy. I only smiled once.
So i dare the people who so-called get the movie to explane me the jokes. And I think if they are honest and not so hard trying to be an intellectual, they agree that this movie sucked as a comedy. If you have Bill Murray as a director, it’s your duty to give him some good jokes. I know there is a difference between vulgar and subdued humor. This movie had no humor at all, only a sleep-generating story with a great cast.
Comment by Doolhof — Mon January 9, 2006 @ 16:22who ever wrote the article should go back to watching hilarious films like scary movie and scary movie II. what a joke. too many characters? since when did a movie you can watch and still find humor and depth to become a bad thing? what an ass clown.
Comment by doug — Thu July 26, 2007 @ 19:32maybe it wasnt obvious for everyone when steve z was smoking next to the pregnant lady before he lectured her on hitting the sauce while she was pregnant. the movie is not designed to sell a punch line. maybe they should have put a laugh track so everyone would know when to laugh.
Comment by doug — Thu July 26, 2007 @ 19:38