#wes anderson analysis

[sleepboysummer]

i am never going to move on from her constance and i hope you guys never do either. she is the most genuine constance i have ever seen portrayed to this day.

[eloquentsisyphianturmoil]

Fantastic Mr. Fox is Fëanáro’s fursona; what the fuck

[ratzillaeatsdick]

a look at poison by wes anderson. 

Poison is by far my favorite of the four short film adaptations Wes Anderson has put out of Roald Dahl's short stories. Poison tells the story of Harry Pope, a white British soldier who fears that a krait, a poisonous snake, has crawled under his covers and is poised to bite him. He is helped by Timber Woods, an Indian-British soldier, and Dr. Ganderbai, a local Indian doctor. The film takes place at Woods’s house, where Harry Pope is staying, in British-ruled India. The film, like the other stories in the Dahl collection, is shot like a play, with stunning set work and stagehands at the ready to help with props. 

The basic story, if you haven’t watched the film yet (which you should), is this: Woods drives home and finds Harry Pope laying in bed very, very still. Pope tells him that while he was reading in bed, he saw a krait crawl under the covers and fall asleep on his stomach. He has been lying still and silently since then. At first, Woods proposes that he, armed with a knife, pull back the cover, brush off the snake, and cut the snake and suck out any poison himself. Pope is scornful toward the idea, calling Woods an idiot, and tells him to call for a doctor. Woods calls Dr. Ganderbai, who makes his way over quickly. He first administers some serum to Pope, so that if he is bitten he (maybe) will be safe regardless. After debating with himself outside of the room, he decides to soak the mattress in chloroform, hopefully sedating the krait and saving Harry Pope. Dr. Ganderbai painstakingly funnels the chloroform to the mattress. For 15 minutes, the trio wait in silence, with Dr. Ganderbai staring furiously at Pope, after he has a loud outburst. The smell of the chloroform reminds Woods of an operation he went through, which left a scar on his forehead. Finally, Dr. Ganderbai and Woods prepare to lower the cover and remove the krait. When the cover is removed, the krait is not there. Dr. Ganderbai remarks that the krait could be anywhere, even up the pajama leg. At this, Pope, who has been growing increasingly twitchy, jumps up on the bed and moves furiously. When he does not die of snake bite, the room goes quiet. The camera work at this point has gone shaky, and the lighting flickers while a heartbeat plays in the background of the scene. Dr. Ganderbai teases, lightheartedly, that perhaps Pope dreamt up the snake. Snake hissing is now audible. Pope does not take the teasing jokingly however and is offended. He explodes at Dr. Ganderbai, yelling abusive, racially motivated insults. When Dr. Ganderbai breaks a chair and storms out the room, the lighting stabilizes, as does the camerawork, and silence permeates the set. Woods follows Dr. Ganderbai out the house and tells him that Pope doesn’t know what he’s talking about and that he (Dr. Ganderbai) saved Pope’s life. Dr. Ganderbai says, “No, I didn’t.” Woods tells him that Pope owes him his life. Dr. Ganderbai says “No, he doesn’t.” Woods apologizes. Dr. Ganderbai looks at Woods and says, “You can’t be.” With that, the film is over. 

If you still haven’t watched the short film, then go do that. My summary does not do it justice. 

This story is run in part by the three characters and the subtext in all of their interactions. Harry Pope is a white, British soldier. Timber Woods is an Indian-British soldier. Dr. Ganderbai is Indian and notably an outsider to the British military. Harry Pope and Timber Woods live on a British Jute and Woods is dressed in a British military outfit. At the beginning, the power hierarchy is not apparent. After all, Pope is immobilized in bed and cannot do anything to aggravate the krait, leaving him quiet and subdued up until the last minutes of the film. However, he is still expressive enough with Woods noting, ���The expression was in the eyes and around the corners of the mouth, as you can see.” He manages to be derisive in his interactions with the two men, as is apparent when he calls Woods an idiot and snaps at Dr. Ganderbai: “Get on with it!” His clothing are a pair of light blue pajamas, simple at first glance, though Woods notes that he has a fly button made of mother-of-pearl. Woods remarks that he has never had a fly button, let alone a mother-of-pearl button. This is another difference between the two soldiers, their wealth. However, even in these interactions, Dr. Ganderbai and Woods treat him with kindness and patience. Everything that he is doing is attributed to the stress that the stillness is putting him under, with Dr. Ganderbai calling his behavior understandable up until this point. 

Dr. Ganderbai approaches the situation with kindness and urgency. He takes every care to reassure Pope that he is in safe hands throughout the crisis. He only starts to lose his patience when Pope also loses his nerve. After Pope’s second outburst (“I can hear him!”), he stares at him, with Woods thinking that he is probably thinking something along the lines of this: “Don’t move, don’t speak! Damn you, you’re not spoiling this now, you hear me?” Even in his anger, he is silent and considerate of the life-threatening situation at hand. 

Woods, the narrator of the whole story, is also considerate and kind. His first scene shows him turning the headlights of his car off immediately, so as not to disturb the possibly sleeping Harry Pope. He takes his shoes off (in his own house), following Pope’s peculiar, distressed orders. He is prepared to literally suck venom out of Pope’s stomach and even agrees with Pope’s assessment that he is an idiot for not thinking of calling a doctor sooner. He is thoughtful of Pope, despite the discomfort brought upon him by the whole situation, be that by Pope’s twitching and his derisive tone (“I didn’t like that. I didn’t like the way he talked either.”), or the smell of chloroform, which seems to remind him of an injury he incurred, possibly by explosion (this is entirely surmised through choice of words and is not definitive). Woods is only non-complacent when Pope does the inexcusable, though even afterwards he apologizes for Pope. 

The playing field, which had Pope more or less at the bottom the entire time, switches the minute Pope is offended at Dr. Ganderbai’s joke. It is now that race bulldozes its way into the story. Pope is a white soldier belittling an Indian doctor who has just taken painstaking measures to save his life. These two represent the two opposite ends of the tense atmosphere that was all of British-ruled India. Pope’s twitchiness, everpresent while he was arrested by the snake, explodes via the words every white supremacist has felt when confronted with somebody of a “lesser” race. The intricacies are most beautifully conveyed via subtext in the ending, which apparently has confused other viewers of the film. The dialogue goes something like this: 

“You saved his life.”

“No, I don’t think so.”

“I- I mean, you might’ve- He owes you his life, I mean, he owes you his life, doctor.”

“No, he doesn’t.”

Beat.

“I’m sorry.”

“You can’t be.”

Dr. Ganderbai refuting that Pope owes him his life, isn’t a show of humility. It’s the caste systems reasserting itself. Dr. Ganderbai knows that there is no way that Harry Pope, a white soldier, owes anything, let alone his life to an Indian. And when Dr. Ganderbai tells Timber Woods that he cannot be sorry, it is not because he thinks that Woods should not apologize on Pope’s behalf, it is because Woods literally cannot be sorry or remorseful. He is a part of the system, though he may not have the same power as Harry Pope. Timber Woods, after all, is a British soldier. He wears the British uniform and lives in a British jute. How can he be sorry, when he wears the uniform of the institution that created the circumstances where Dr. Ganderbai can be treated like that? 

The other driving force of the story, as is the case in any Wes Anderson film, is the camera work and editing. It is most evident in the climax. The minute Harry Pope jumps on his bed, the camera goes shaky-hand and the lighting flickers. A heartbeat plays throughout the following scene. Up until this point, the camera has been steady and smooth, emphasizing the play-like feeling the story holds. When the fourth-wall is broken, it reminds the audience that this is a play, or it should be treated like one. The shift happens right before Dr. Ganderbai enters Pope’s room to administer chloroform. The last look he gives is one that is severe, a sign of the tense scene to follow. When Woods interprets Dr. Ganderbai’s silence, that is also a moment where the fourth wall is broken. Dr. Ganderbai steps forward and a spotlight is shown on him. We are still in a play element. With the shaky camera work, the breaks are more personal and feel more like a call for help or affirmation that they (Woods and Dr. Ganderbai) are not the only ones seeing this. It is also in the context of the shaky camera that the snake is most “visible.” A rattling noise plays in the underscore of the entire scene. Right before Pope opens his mouth to start his rant, a snapping sound is heard, like a snake snapping its mouth closed. The feeling of suspense, of danger, is helped by Woods whispering again, as though the snake has reappeared. The heartbeat goes unsteady and varies in volume and rhythm. When Dr. Ganderbai leaves the room and Woods pulls a knife on Pope to get him to shut up, the heartbeat stops, as if dead. The lighting evens out and we go back to the steady camerawork. The shaky hand makes the moment, the crucial climax, feel real and immerses the audience even further. The last break is when Woods makes eye contact with the camera after Dr. Ganderbai tells him he cannot be sorry, with a sort of somber look. Finally, one last little touch is the book that Harry Pope is reading, The Golden Lotus. Though I personally have never read it, it is a story about two women who are fighting for prestige in their clan, which is declining in power. A fitting story for a British man to be reading, I think.

Poison is a masterclass in subtext and should be required viewing for anybody trying to be a visual storyteller. It is my favorite of the short films released and every time I think of it and the story it tells, I cry. It won’t be the most relatable for any caucasian viewers, but as somebody who has been micro aggressed in my workplace more times than I can count, with seemingly no motivation, I don’t care. It’s brilliant.

[powerpointprofessor]

I found something strange

This post for context

I assumed that this Scientist didn't have a confirmed name and so I just accepted it and gave her a Placeholder to make up for it

However. I looked through the Isle of Dogs art book and took pictures of the Scientists because I love those guys. One of the pictures being concept art of the Junior Scientist. I looked at the second Scientist's name and then discovered her surname is Nakamura. It would have been fine on it's but however one of Mayor Kobayashi's affiliates is referred to as Yakuza Nakamura-San

There could be many speculation but this is mine.

They are related in some way, Daughter and Father or Niece and Uncle. This could mean that this particular Scientist in some way has a connection to the Yakuza. Though this doesn't mean she's evil or anything. She's probably just an ordinary girl but imagine your Father/Uncle being part of a group of corrupted people of this city and are against the person you happen to work with, Family dinner would be extremely uncomfortable

This one is less absurd but Nakamura is a pretty common japanese surname and it's a mere coincidence. Considering the many details in the film I'm leaning in to the first but what do you think

Similar vein to the first but she's actually adopted. As opposed to being blood related

Let me know what you guys think? I'm genuinely curious

Also aside from all that. She is so pretty, OMG! Praying she's single I'm so lonely

[tomcat-radio]

Another miscellaneous text post on a movie no one cares about: The Royal Tenenabums and horses

Someone else has had to have analysed this by now but I've been itching to post something about it since I wathced The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) with my friend and his mother several weeks ago (albeit for the sixth time because the autism is autisming) and his mother brought up something incredibly interesting to me that explains very complex characters in a simple but in my opinion, perfect way.

Margot Tenenbaum is a zebra, we see zebra symbolism relating to her all throughout the movie, from her wallpaper, to the zebra costume she wore on her 11th birthday, to the zebra exhibit she and Richie slept under at the museum as children. Margot has felt out of place her whole life, like a zebra in a family of horses, she feels like she never was a genius and the only one of the Tenenbaums she could truly connect with was Richie (which is a discussion for another day). We know she was purposefully excluded from multiple family activities throughout her childhood and was constantly introduced by Royal as his "adopted daughter". She wanted to seek out her 'real' family in the first place as she was made to feel like the Tenenbaum household wasn't somewhere she was meant to be.

Chas, Richie, Royal, Etheline, they're all horses, a stable of horses that Margot was lost in (I am by no means a Margot sympathiser by the way, I have my reasons).

Eli Cash, he obviously has a pretty overarching cowboy aesthetic but in the way where he's notably slightly obsessed with chasing after and wrangling wild animals (note the magazine cover where he stands shirtless clasping a snake by the neck in each hand). What throughout pop culture are cowboys known for trying to capture? Horses. Eli has spent his entire life chasing after a false idea of what the tenenbaums have, trying to lasso their fame, their fortune, the sense of belonging and appreciation he thinks they have. But given he was only looking at a false idea of their lives he saw through rose coloured glasses it'll never be attainable to him. He's spent his whole life at this point like a dog trying to bite it's own tail creating a deep void within him that he chooses to fill with drugs and reptiles and homoerotic paintings, but deep down he's still somewhat self aware that he's really just an average b-list author.

And finally, to add a very minor detail to this theory. At the end of the film when Chas's dog Buckley, is hit by Eli's car, royal gives them a dalmatian. This might not seem signficant at all, but in an unrelated google search journey trying to find out why dalmatians were so specific to fire-fighters I discovered they were selectively bred to guide horses. This exchange occurs slightly before the movies resolution where the characts despite what it may appear, don't exactly get happy endings but return to a sense of slightly better yet still undeniably sombre normaly. If the tenenbaums are horses, this addition of a new dog symbolises moving back into a rythm of sorts. A consistent trot throughout the dreary landscapes of their lives.

[pookielious]

Dps fandom we need to not ignore the other characters reactions to Neil's death we only ever talk about Todd's and charlies reaction to his dead which I think it's just because those two are 2 of the most liked charaters and because their reactions are the main focus in most of the scenes after the death and the consequences of it

Neil was important to the group being the 'heart' of it for lack of better words,all of the poets where extreamely attached to him especially charlie knox and meeks at the start,the 3 (the 3 musketeers fr) of them immediately shows up while todd and neil are unpacking to greet him and ask about his summer; they also all show to have some sort of opinion on mr perry like they've met/heard about him before and hits hinted that the poets (- todd) had known eachother for a while before the movie taken place

During the scene where charlie is telling todd about neil we get a shot right before they go outside of pitts, knox and meeks standing there watching

It's only a few seconds of the whole thing but we dont talk about i I feel like I've only seen 1 or 2 people ever mention this scene I had to go on a screencap website just to find it but we get to see the shock on everyone's faces (- cameron) after being told the news

In this screencap and the scene before it where they were all out in the snow you can see especially on meeks face the hurt the whole thing had caused since in both he's either crying or his voice is wavering while he trying to comfort todd, knox was also trying to comfort todd and himself by rocking him back and forth and in the sceencap above you can see he had been crying due to the reflection of watery-ness you can see on his face

in the back cameron had his own sad face but I can make a whole separate post about cameron and his response to Neil's death

In conclusion neil was important to just about every poet and the spotlight shouldn't be only on todd and charlie even though those are also very important to the story ty for reading🛐

[goodhealthyshiningcara]

"oh it's not about ANYTHING that's what's so cool, it's about being confused-"

*slaps you*

Shut up!!! That's not what it's fucking about! You can't see something confusing, fail to analyze it, and then say it's about being confused! That's such a lame self-own! C'mon, apply more skills! Apply more critical thinking!

*shaking you*

There was a weird CGI alien! There was a scene where a room full of people all chant the same weird phrase! The kids play a game about memory, and an identical car chase happens like 3 times throughout the movie! You think all that shit is just to be quirky and random?

[archibald-2017]

Something something Mr Fox has a phobia of wolves something something He refuses to consider himself a wild animal when it comes to them living in a hole but also uses being a wild animal as an excuse for stealing food something something Mrs Fox used to 'be wild' and now paints thunder storms something something the wolf at the end is fully wild, doesnt speak, doesnt wear clothes, stands on four legs something something Mr Fox connects with the wolf, connecting with his wild side but letting it go

[sakuraswordly]

Let me continue from vole-mon-amour

As you can see Mulder is soft and starts to care about Scully not because is love at first sight but because it is the relationship between partners (Start with Season 1). Mulder knew no one understood him even Scully but Scully as a partner, chose to not leave him even though at first she did not believe in aliens. The relationship between them at first is just like Demi Lovato and Simon Cowell on the X Factor. In Demi's view who calls Simon a grumpy old man, this is the same thought as Scully at first.

As you can see in the X Files Bloopers- Seasons 1, if you compare to that picture scene, what Mulder did here or his feelings, this is the real Mr David Duchovny for Miss Gillian Anderson in season 1. At first, Miss Gillian tried to learn her role and it was super hard for her at first but Mr David Duchovny taught her and always be with her(Until today they're the best(just forget chemistry that they're doing-_-;)) That's why I watch only season 1-4 because that jerk Mulder is the real Mr David Duchovny in his role.

[girlpog]

Cannot stop thinking about this movie

[sunny4thewin]

Heyy tumbr! It's me! Your good friend Sunny! So I just watched the movie 'The Detachment' and I couldn't tell whether or not I hated it? It was sort of like a car crash where I couldn't look away. Don't get me wrong, the content that it covered was very deep, and I think that the cast was trying to do it justice, but something about it seemed weird. I realize that this was also a big role for Adrien Brody, probably the biggest once since he won his first Oscar (from The Pianist). I know he was trying, but I think maybe the script just wasn't working? If somebody could convince me why the movie was amazing that'd be really great!

[attemptsonherlifepdf]

fantastic mr fox: humanising animals, animalising men and an exploration of masculine identity. part 2

in commenting on masculinity, the narrative of fantastic mr fox also then must comment on femininity as the two are bedfellows. while mr fox’s interactions between animalism and masculinity function as the guise of control, mrs fox’s interactions between animalism and femininity function as a form of legitimate control. mr fox may have his master plans and blueprints, but he cannot resist the urge to steal chickens and flaunt what he believes to be a display of his masculinity; in contrast, mrs fox maintains her composure until her animalism becomes a necessary tool to protect herself or her family. examples of this include when she snarls and scratches her husband, and when she attacks the rat with a chain in order to save ash. outside of these instances, felicity remains calm, level-headed and controlled. this can serve as commentary on femininity itself, as women are often expected to control their desires, emotions and outbursts for the sake of appearances; control is intertwined with femininity. it could be argued that mr fox is in fact jealous of his wife’s animalism because while he seeks control himself, it is a facade and he cannot resist giving in to his urges due to his need for validation. felicity has the control he fantasises about, and this may explain part of their dynamic, and why mr fox makes such an effort to be suave and charming in order to compensate for his uncontrolled animalism.

mr fox’s masculinity is constantly compared to other instances of masculinity both in the movie and the original book. as previously mentioned in part one, the ‘canis lupus’ scene serves to compare mr fox, standing on his hind legs, wearing a corduroy suit and speaking french and latin, with an unclothed, non-verbal wolf. mr fox realises that while he initially saw his masculinity as tied up in his animalism, it’s really tied up in the human-style life he’s carefully constructed for himself. he used to view family, employment, suburbia, etc as limiting his masculinity when in reality it is the core to the framework of his identity, rather than beng a fence around it. while he did not chose to be a father, he made the active decision to buy an expensive house, write for the local newspaper, construct elaborate plans of chicken theft, wear corduroy suits. these decisions were not forced upon him by circumstance, they don’t inhibit his ability to be an animal. if felicity can be an animal leading the same humanised life, so can mr fox, and if the wolf can possess masculinity without clothes or a house, so can mr fox. he stops understanding animalism as a monolith and begins to see it as a facet of individual identity. it takes exposure to the contrast between extremes (the wolf and felicity) to show him all the possibilities his identity and masculinity can be.

the fact that felicity is also animalistic is significant; usually animalism and masculinity are conflated, but she demonstrates how femininity can be just as wild, but also shows how a feminine response to wildness is to control it. this is because aggression is perceived as an inherently masculine trait, and control and restraint are seen as inherently feminine. this ties in to the notion of ‘male fears’ versus ‘female fears’ in media. female characters are often motivated by the fear of being used, while male characters are often motivated by the fear of being useless. mr fox is no exception to this, as he strives to prove his use as a man through the means of his elaborate chicken heists which provide food for his family. he admits after his plans fail that he wants everyone to think he’s the ‘fantastic mr fox…otherwise [i] don’t feel good about myself.’ this fits the mould of the ‘masculine fear’ of being useless as he conflates being liked with being needed. to be seen a smart and reliable, he aims to think of a ‘master plan’ to save everyone, every time. mrs fox unleashing her animal responses in order to protect herself or her family from being used either by the farmers or mr fox himself, also aligns with this concept. mr fox begins to evolve when his fear is addressed and rationalised. he begins to understand that being a father and husband is it’s own source of usefulness, and that as long as he values his family, he is not useless. he transitions from attempting to do tasks of ‘inherent’ value to attributing value to the tasks he already does naturally, learning to self-validate. felicity acts as a static contrast to this; she does not require this evolution of personality in the same manner as her sense of validation seems to already be grounded and stable.

the way that fantastic mr fox compares masculinity and femininity through the lens of animalism serves to divide animalism into controlled and uncontrolled categories. both core depictions of animalism work in conjunction with that of smaller side characters. the non-protagonists of fantastic mr fox all demonstrate a common trait; the fear of humans and the sensibility to steer clear of farmers. mr fox is warned of the dangers of the farmers by badger:

BADGER

don’t buy this tree, foxy…we’re talking about three of the meanest, nastiest, ugliest farmers in the history of this valley.

mr fox’s arrogance gets in the way and he takes this warning as a challenge, rather than a piece of advice. thus far, being distanced from humans has been a vital trait of animalism but it is at this moment where mr fox’s masculine fear overrides his inherent animalism and he ventures into the human sphere. it could be argued that badger warning him not to makes him feel as though badger is telling him he is not capable, or that he is undermining his judgement, thus causing him to insist upon purchasing the tree in human territory. mr fox’s core issue stem from the separation between his animalism and masculinity, as is demonstrated in this scene, and it is when these are once again aligned that he begins to heal himself.

fantastic mr fox establishes the human and animal social spheres and depicts a messy convergence of the two. at the centre of this is a sense of competing masculinity, between mr fox and the farmers. masculinity is examined through multiple lenses such as that of animalism, violence, in comparison to femininity, and fear. all of this coalesces into one point: that one’s sense of identity and value cannot sustainably be derived from external validation. the farmers reach the end of the narrative still waiting to outwit mr fox, relying on that external situation to validate their masculinity, and they are unhappy. mr fox, in contrast, has come to internally validate and actively places value on his actions rather than striving for an impossible standard. his ‘fantasticness’ comes from him being authentic, not performative.

fantastic mr fox: humanising animals, animalising men, and an exploration of masculine identity

‘this story is too predictable.’ / ‘predictable? really? what happens in the end?’ / ‘in the end, we all die. unless you change.’

mr fox, the titular character of wes anderson’s 2009 stop-motion adaptation of roald dahl’s children’s book, is a portrait of two conflicting manifestations of masculinity. he is built to demonstrate the crossover between tradition and modernity, between wild and civilised. characterised as a charming gentleman, almost renowned for his recklessness, mr fox combines his undomesticated instincts with a carefully crafted domestic life. he appears to spend more time manufacturing a perfect home and family than he does actually participating in it. the events of the movie serve to strip away his facade and present both the audience and protagonist with a harsh reality to deal with: the juxtaposing aspects of his identity that he must contend with in order to survive his situation. these aspects are demonstrated through the use of anthropomorphic animals. in essence, the text attempts to convey the message that while you can associate your actions with animal or human traits in order to characterise and frame them, you cannot change their value and their consequences. it serves as a critique of how the nature of male identity is exploited to shunt responsibility, and the movie specifically promotes a more collectivist mentality.

there are four key scenes that mark mr fox’s journey in terms of his identity. initially, we first see his identity openly questioned once he has moved into a new home (a large and expensive tree), just prior to him revealing his ‘master plan’ to kylie, who becomes his assistant of sorts. he asks, ‘why a fox? why not a horse, or a beetle, or a bald eagle? i’m saying this more as, like, existentialism, you know? who am i? and how can a fox ever be happy without, you’ll forgive the expression, a chicken in its teeth?’ he attributes his identity with the ability to fulfil his base desires, like he could in his youth. aspects of his later life such as employment, family, and safety restrict his ability and leaves him feeling untethered from himself. the movie opens with his youthful vibrance and recklessness, and is quickly contrasted with his dissatisfaction with his job, home, and life in general.

MR FOX

i dont want to live in a hole anymore. it makes me feel poor.

MRS FOX

we are poor, but we’re happy.

MR FOX

comme ci, come ca...

does anyone actually read my column?

having been moved out of the hole and into an expensive tree, mrs fox asks her husband:

MRS FOX

do you still feel poor?

MR FOX

less so.

constructing the ideal domestic space for himself and his family does not satisfy mr fox and he yearns for more, which is where is existentialism and ‘master plan’ come into play. domesticity was never going to satisfy mr fox, as he yearns for something youthful and risky and dazzling, adjectives not usually applied to a quiet and content home life. the consequences of this dissatisfaction are drastic and almost immediate.

soon, having been forced out of his new home and underground by an attack from the farmers, mr fox is faced with a situation he cannot charm his way out of. he attempts to apologise to his son and recite a speech to raise the morale of his family, and both of these attempts are shut down by those around him. the facade of his elaborate home, his monologues, even his suits, are abruptly stripped away leaving him with only his actions which he cannot charm his way out of. the reality is that he and his family, his neighbourhood, is stuck underground with no means of food as a result of his selfish actions. this prompts yet another key scene; his argument with felicity, which begins with her viciously hissing and scratching his face.

MRS FOX

why did you lie to me?

MR FOX

because im a wild animal.

MRS FOX

you are also a husband, and a father.

MR FOX

im trying to tell you the truth about myself.

MRS FOX

i dont care about the truth about yourself. this story is too predictable.

MR FOX

predictable? really? what happens in the end?

MRS FOX

in the end, we all die. unless you change.

mrs fox’s physical attack on her husbands face serves as a display of genuine animal ferocity, making mr fox’s claim to being a ‘wild animal’ appear as a flimsy excuse for his behaviour. his chicken theft, which he was insistent upon regardless of the consequences, was motivated not by animal instincts but a selfish desire to feel a particular version of his own masculinity. disregarding the safety of his family actually seems like a natural byproduct of his master plans because he is trying to reclaim his masculinity from a time before his family existed, and in his eyes, restricted him. the very recent loss of his tail, combined with this conversation with his wife, is a harsh reality check for mr fox in terms of the dangers of his masculinity.

the audience sees the outcome of this conversation later on, in the waterfall scene. here mr fox admits to his insecurities and suggests sacrificing himself to the farmers to save the local community.

MR FOX

darling, maybe they’ll let everyone else live!

…

MR FOX

foxes traditionally like to court danger, hunt prey and outsmart predators, and that’s what im actually good at…i guess at the end of the day im just-

MRS FOX

i know. we’re wild animals.

the difference between this admission to animalism and the one from his argument with felicity is that here, both parties gain some acceptance of their animalism without using it as an excuse for their behaviour. the inclusion of others in animalism – ‘we’re’ wild animals, rather than ‘i am’ a wild animal – contributes to illustrate how wildness is not specific to masculinity. it is not femininity vs masculinity but animals vs man.

the movie also questions the nature of an animal in the final key scene known as ‘canis lupus.’ wes Anderson referred to this scene as ‘the reason im making this movie.’ throughout the movie, mr fox alludes to his ‘phobia of wolves’ and shuts down any conversation surrounding them:

MR FOX

scared? no, i have a phobia of them!...a wolf? what’s with all the wolf talk? can we give it a rest for once?

arguably, these reactions are representative of mr fox’s aversion to competitive masculinity. he shuts down any opportunity for those around him to discuss something he sees as more masculine than himself in order to feel secure in his own masculinity. critic shana mlawski argues that ‘the wolf is described as the wildest, most frightening, and yet most beautiful creature in the world. mr fox fears the wolf and yet wants to be exactly like him. we can thus say that mr fox fears pure, wild masculinity yet also yearns to own it himself.’ the scene holds an eerie familiarity to it; mr fox is recognising something that he thought would be a reflection of himself, but the wild animal is no longer familiar to him anymore. he now accepts his role as a husband and a father and no longer fights to overtly express his animalism in the same way as the wolf. the most he can offer the wolf is raising his fist in solidarity. he calls out to the wolf, ‘i have a phobia of wolves!’, which is an interesting moment to admit this in. it’s his acceptance that allows him to admit this. the scene is entirely compromised of male characters: mr fox, kristofferson, ash, kylie and the wolf. mr fox’s admission to his fear allows him to be vulnerable in front of these people he cares about, and to use this as a teaching moment for the young boys.

MR FOX

what a beautiful creature. wish him luck out there, boys.

here mr fox openly admits his admiration for someone else’s masculinity in front of others without showing signs of his own insecurity. he can admire the wolf for what he is without seeing him as competition. the scene allows the audience to see and directly compare two forms of masculinity and animalism, and to understand that there is no one true expression of either of those traits. the wolf has connotations of violence and ferocity, whereas mr fox and his suit and display of multilingualism are entirely modern, but both are masculine animals who are valid in their own right. either way, both animals rely on violence for survival at times.

kupfer frames violence in three ways: symbolically, structurally and as a narrative essential. there are various forms of violence within this narrative, namely mr fox killing chickens and squabs, and the three farmers’ attack on the animal community. symbolically, mr fox’s chicken theft is attributed to his masculinity. while it is often presented as thought-out ‘master plans’, his desire to enact this violence in the first place supposedly stems from his ‘wild animal’ instincts. he associates a time where he felt secure in his masculinity with his actions at the time (violence). structurally, we see the potential for this violence in the opening scene, where mr fox takes his wife chicken-stealing and they become trapped. he is stuck in a fox trap with his wife when he receives the news of his impending fatherhood, a relatively obvious symbol for his view of fatherhood in general. the news of his wife’s pregnancy disrupts his ability to continue stealing chickens, not just on this specific occasion but through the coming years as well. mr fox appears to view family life as an unfulfilling, less raw expression of his masculinity, and is shown to be wholly dissatisfied with his life.

the violence on the farmers’ behalf is almost always in reaction to mr fox’s violence, already giving it a structural framing. boggis, bunch and bean are referred to early on in the film as the ‘meanest, nastiest and ugliest farmers on the side of the river.’ their violence against mr fox and subsequently the local animal community is an attempt to gain back power and status. mr fox’s actions are “humiliating’ and the local news coverage of this exchange between the farmers and animals raises the stakes as now the reputation of these farmers is on the line as well as their power. violence here serves as a narrative essential because it drives mr fox into a situation that forces him to confront his issues with masculinity and splitting between his animal and human traits, giving the text/movie a fulfilling arc. violence is

introduced as inherently masculine, but is decoupled from masculinity by the ending. mrs fox also plays a small but significant role in this; at various moments in the movie she exhibits her own displays of aggression equal in intensity to the men around her, suggesting to the audience that forms of violence should be categorised as human vs animal rather than male vs female. examples of this behaviour include her clawing at her husband’s face, and a parallel between her and a male human character wherein they both connect two wires and shout ‘contact!’, causing an explosion. while this moment is brief, it highlights a distinct difference between animals being violent and men. humans’ aggression is driven by the need for power, whereas that of animals is driven by the need for survival. the man paralleled with felicity only sparked the explosion to destroy mr fox’s home and assert the dominance of the three farmers, while mrs fox used the same form of violence to enact a plan to save her nephew’s life. petey’s song even alludes to this sentiment: ‘well he stole, and he cheated, and he lied just to survive.’

mr fox’s tail becomes a symbol of power; bean wears it as a necktie, and mr fox feels emasculated by his loss.

MR FOX

one of those slovenly farmers is probably wearing my tail as a necktie right now.

…

BADGER

i cant even imagine how painful, even just emotionally, that must be for you… oh but foxy how humiliating, having your tail blown clean off by-

MR FOX

can we drop it?

the use of the tail as a necktie is a symbol of the power that mr fox and the farmers end up jostling to achieve: at first it belongs to mr fox, then to the farmers, and is eventually reclaimed once more by the fox.

MR FOX

you shot off my tail.

[through gritted teeth] i’m not leaving here without that necktie.

when he reclaims his tail towards the end of the movie, it has been torn to shreds and needs ‘dry cleaning twice a week’ to maintain itself. this can be interpreted as a symbol for his evolved definitions of masculinity and power: his masculinity is no longer defined by impressing people or stealing or killing chickens, but in the quiet satisfaction of having a family. the final scene reveals that mrs fox is pregnant again, and instead of her glowing and her husband giving an awkward grin like in the opening scene, both of the spouses ‘glow.’ the structural framing of these pregnancy reveals bookending the events of the movie allows anderson to demonstrate mr fox’s growth and change in his priorities. the domestic life appears to be enough for him, and he no longer seems to find it emasculating,

what stands out as particularly modern about mr fox is how he unconsciously separates himself from both his wildness and his suburban self in his effort to combine them. he uses his ‘wildness’ as an excuse for his violence and selfishness, but is ultimately not willing to participate in truly wild forms of violence and selfishness, such has hunting. his chicken thefts always include infiltrating a human site, like boggis, bunce and bean’s farms, and the fun of it is in outsmarting them, rather than finding those animals himself out in the wild. the local animal community essentially functions as we would expect a rural village occupied by humans to function: everyone knows everyone, there is one local school and various small and quaint homes. while the setting reflects anderson’s signature style, it is also reflective of dahl’s framing of the community in the original text.

mr fox comes across as an individual who believes himself to be above the somewhat backward mentality of his village, that he is the most civilised and dazzling and original, and he exaggerates these traits in himself out of insecurity: ‘if they arent dazzled and blown away and kind of intimidated by me, then i dont feel good about myself.’this is also reflected in his consistent ‘trademark’, his whistle-and-click combination that he uses to set himself apart from other foxes. his home is also a reflection of this:

MRS FOX

you know, foxes live in holes for a reason.

MR FOX

[grunts and tilts head in disagreement]

yes and no.

this insecurity and desire for outsider approval and individuality is inherently human, a quality of his that cannot really be associated with his animalised parts. this precarious sense of identity and self doubt separates him from his ‘wildness’ as it stands, which is only intensified by the fact that he compensates by exaggerating his human traits in order to be liked and feel worthy, as those are the traits he believes have the most value. towards the end of mr fox’s character arc, he is forced to admit that his need for external validation is flawed and unsustainable. when the façade of carefully constructed grandeur is literally washed away by bean, he is left with nothing but his actions and their implications for those around him. foxy reconciles with the relative insignificance of an identity based on other’s perceptions of you when rat dies soon after, reacting to the suggestion that he redeemed himself last minute by revealing ash’s location:

MR FOX

redemption? sure. but in the end, he’s just another dead rat in a garbage pail behind a chinese restaurant.

this moment is also used to inadvertently allow the audience to evaluate the significance of motivation and intention to the value of an action. although rat did reveal useful information to aid the group in saving Kristofferson, mr fox recognises that he only did so because he realised he could not win this fight.

MR FOX

would you have told me if i didn’t kill you first?

RAT

never.

mr fox’s own motivations throughout the movie have devalued his actions as they have mostly been self-serving. as his motivations evolve to centre around his family, he gains the perspective to understand why one’s intentions are so important. while intention does not entirely dictate how good one’s actions are, they certainly characterise the person who’s action it is. your actions have value and consequences as they are, and that cannot be changed by dressing them up or animalising them to distance yourself.

in essence, fantastic mr fox is a lesson in the value of including those around you in your mentality and worldview. it paints masculinity as something that is inherent and complex in nature, but promotes the idea that it is not stuck with its traditional connotations of violence and egoism. mr fox’s emotional development throughout the text mostly centres around his own insecurities surrounding his masculinity and how that causes him to overcompensate in ways that harm those around him. by the end he recognises that more tame and domestic forms of masculinity are just as valid, and that basing his self-worth on how ‘dazzled’ his peers are by him is immature and not constructive. his family now liberates him and allows him to be vulnerable rather than restricting how he feels he can express himself, and as a unit the animals beat the farmers in their game of power-seeking. mr fox recognises and appreciates both his human and animal traits, without using them as a means to excuse his behaviour or to feel bad about his worth.

MR FOX

i guess my point is, we’ll eat tonight, and we’ll eat together. and even in this not particularly flattering light, you are without a doubt the five and a half most wonderful wild animals ive ever met in my life. so let’s raise our boxes – to our survival.

i.k.b

[merriclo]

teachers get a lot less mad when u watch movies during ur free time at school if you make it look like ur studying it. my english teacher ripped my classmate a new one for watching Avengers during class but said nothing when she saw me “taking notes” on Fantastic Mr. Fox

[powerpointprofessor]

Asteroid City

I'm not a full on review or a critic. But I am a very artsy person though（╹◡╹）♡

Asteroid City isn't really a film that explains a meaning to you, It isn't really a film that's fast paced and overly expressive with a very simple meaning, It's instead a film that may take 1 or 2 watches for you to understand. It lets you have a think about it, I honestly appreciate films like that especially now.

The films format is also good aswell with the scenes that are in color being the play and the scenes in black in white about the production of said play.

I honestly feel that this film is pretty slept on tbh which is a shame as even looking at pictures it's beautiful. The whole meaning of this film is up for interpretation, Though I do think it has a lot to do with Jones Hall and Conrad Earp, Who are two men that are gay and love eachother involved with making the play however in the play Jones plays Augie Steenbeck who has a deceased wife, Jones' lover who is Conrad sadly died later on in production, Augie's wife had a scrapped scene in the play, Jones and the Actress have a discussing basically renacting the deleted scene. There is a lot of paralel of Augie and his late wife and Jones and Conrad.

TL;DR - Watch Asteroid City and also Wes Anderson films aren't for low attention span

[tomcat-radio]

Some disjointed thoughts on the bathroom scene/needle in the hay scene from The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

ok first up, major tw for suicide/suicide attempt, and spoiler for The Royal Tenenbaums (do I need to spoiler warning for a movie from 20+ years ago, I don't know). If you haven't seen the Royal Tenenbaums go watch it and come back to this, hell, watch it twice if you want.

I geniunely believe the bathroom scene from The Royal Tenenbaums is one of the most interesting and important scenes in Wes Anderson's entire portfolio. It might seem insigificant if you watch his movies from oldest to newest, but if you go backwards you might notice some stuff. A lot of the darker moments of his films are still coated in a layer of whimsy and a lot of his typical aestheticism, especially in his newer stuff. Not that that's a criticism at all. But when you look at the bathroom scene it has this unique rawness to it that I've never really seen anywhere else in all his movies. It feels like all of the layers that his characters tend to sheild their emotions with have suddenly and viscerally been ripped away. And the visuals of this scene contribute to it too, it's two things not often seen in Wes Anderson movies: very saturated and somewhat dark/has dimmer lighting. The bathroom feels so out of place in a way that really makes you sit up and go "oh shit, something's happening", the music too, not only does the song choice never fail to make me sob, but the way it stays quiet as Richie stares into the camera and cuts his hair off, and at the final moment of tentsion as his life flashes infront of his eyes the background music slowly grows louder, climaxing as he bleeds onto the tiles before finally stopping abruptly.

The scene itself is truly one of the best scenes Wes Anderson has under his belt too, despite bringing me closer to tears every single time I happen to watch it. Something that'll always stick in my mind is the exact moment Richie Tenenbaum takes off his glasses, the first time in almost the whole film where we properly see his eyes. Richie is a character that has been hiding, both literally seperating himself on humanity by living on a boat for the last four years before the beginning of the film, but also mentally. He's clearly bottling up all his emotions and problems throughout the film (symbolised by the sunglasses, long hair, beard, even margot's line "stand up straight, let me get a look at you") until he cracks under the weight of them and we get, well, the bathroom scene. Seeing his eyes not only, as the saying goes, gives us a window into his soul, but also truly communicates the amount of pain he's in. Pain that's beyond margot, beyond Royal's betrayal of him, and deep within himself.

Richie never finishes shaving, and in my opinion it's a nod to the fact that he himself as a person is unfinished, unresolved, incomplete. Even his plans lay incomplete with the death that would have met him if he wasn't found by Dudley. His only line in the scene is simply "I'm going to kill myself tomorrow" unfinished because well, he tries to that day. Richie to me is one of the most interesting characters in the movie, if not the most. I didn't think that on my first watch-through, but as I watched the movie again and again it quickly became my opinion. He's someone who unlike Chas and Margot is holding onto an idealised version of his childhood, still mentally stuck there and unwilling to believe Royal as a bad person because of the blurred vision of him that he saw as a kid. His concept of human connection is as equally broken as Margots but instead of filling the empty abyss left by it with unpassionate affairs such as her, he cuts himself off from society, and once he's ripped away from and pulled back into the very family he always thought of as a perfect world he breaks just a little more.

I find his relationship with Margot very interesting too, as I don't belive it's simply a case of "these two flawed people are doing something socially unacceptable because they're flawed". Infact, from Richie's point of view I don't even believe it's romantic. Margot and Richie clearly became codependent on eachother from a very young age due to the childhood they were put through by Royal and to a lesser extent Etheline, and as they grew into emotionally broken people with twisted ideas of love and connection they mistook their relationship for romantic love instead of a platonic relationshop, because that's the only way they know to express a close platonic relationship. Being reuinited with Margot is the only thing keeping Richie together throughout the film and when he learns of all her infidelity he unravels immediately something that was hinted at, began to slip through when Richie puts his hand through the bird cage after Raleigh shares with him his suspicions of margot cheating, he's lost his last coping mechanism in other words.

And so we return again to the bathroom scene, hopefully this helped whoever may be reading it appreciate such a tragic scene a little more, or maybe it just made it sadder, I'm not sure. Stay safe out there and remember that help is always available and things will get better.