Darjeeling Limited

[tim_wright]

I recently saw Wes Anderson's new film, The Darjeeling Limited and, well, I wasn't impressed. A friend asked why and I couldn't quite put it into words at that moment.

But now I can.

Anderson has a knack for telling stories that hinge merely on the profundity of banality (or, perhaps, it is the banality of profundity). I find that (either)

Comments

[roberrr]

We really, really liked the movie.

Partly because he wasn't "telling a story" through a traditional sense. He's a filmmaker, not a novelist; the scenes and settings advance the narrative, it's that which helps develop the characters through their surroundings.

And that imagery was spectacular. Especially the funeral scene, it was just brilliantly done.

The profundity of banality? it's possible, I guess, but his films are about characters more than anything else. The emphasis on banality may be there to take you out of a traditional story/narrative approach to a film and instead into the life and experiences of the character.

[tim_wright]

Oh, sorry, I confused advancing the narrative with, er, telling a story....

Wait a second-those are the same things!

It doesn't matter much whether the narrative deals with a sequence of events or the development of a character, it's still a story.

Ultimately TDL is about characters who free themselves from their past-sorta. Sure it's pretty, but a lot of banal things are pretty.

[mperry10]

Profundity of banality? (I get a hint of postmoderism bashing in that. . .) Isn't that what life is? That's what is so great about his movies - the idea that ordinary is beautiful, and there is no need to "flash" it up to make it worth something. I much prefer this to a movie that spices up the story but has cookie cutter characters. (See: the cheating wife who is forced into it because she has a work-a-holic husband, etc - the story already has written itself