Not Coming to a Theater Near You

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou / USA / 2004

Once again, Wes Anderson has created a richly textured comedy that weaves subtle humor, deadpan performances, and a seemingly incongruous narrative into an engaging, enveloping film. Through a deft manipulation of documentary-style storytelling, Anderson crafts a robust gang of intriguing characters, and locates them in a fully realized world with its own strange rules of logic and reason.

Steve Zissou, struggling deep-sea documentary filmmaker, is on a mission to locate and destroy an elusive, and possibly nonexistent, shark that consumed his best friend. Complicating Steve’s effort is the unexpected appearance of a man claiming to be his son, and a grievous lack of funding. Determined to continue his work, Steve presses on; seemingly immune to the persistent troubles that crop up at every turn.

As with all of Anderson’s movies, if you aren’t completely focused on the meandering story of The Life Aquatic, or refuse to accept its oftentimes bizarre rules (Why does Steve’s lone female crew member spend her days topless? How does Steve survive a solo gun battle with a gang of Filipino pirates?), you might not understand why a tale of a struggling deep-sea documentary maker is worth your time. The key here is to forget about viewing the movie as an inevitable progression of events leading toward a satisfying and tidy conclusion, and allow yourself to revel in each colorful, absurd moment as it happens.

by Thomas Scalzo | Source: Touchstone Pictures 35mm print
17 Jan 2005 6:32 PM | Comments (4)

Comments / 4 total / Submit Comment

1. Eva Michelle / 21 January 2005 / 1:53 PM

   Anderson is at his strongest is in the creation of a world with its unique rules and intense detail. It is this rich world that make the viewing experience so interesting, so that even though the plot might not be going anywhere and the characters might not be empathetic there is still so much to enjoy. My favorite detail: the crayon seahorse.

2. Beth / 26 January 2005 / 8:43 AM / URL

   While watching The Life Aquatic, I couldn’t help but think of Max Fischer’s elaborate theatrical productions in Rushmore: fun to look at but wholly lacking in substance. The melancholy that pulsed through Anderson’s writing collaborations with Owen Wilson has been replaced by whimsy, with the director seemingly more invested in finding cool costumes, music and camera angles than he is in delivering three-dimensional characters. That said, Bill Murray is wonderful (as always).

3. Leo / 29 January 2005 / 12:00 PM / URL

   I’m a (somewhat cautious) fan of all of Anderson’s films, but I think they all lack substance. One thing that has always puzzled me about my reaction to his films is that I always love them upon first viewing and then find them progressively less interesting and rich on subsequent viewings.

   After seeing The Life Aquatic, I finally “got” why this is: Anderson is the master of emotional shorthand. Through acting and dialogue, his films constantly hint at depths that they never actually reach and that Anderson himself is never particularly interested in. Luke Wilson’s suicide attempt in The Royal Tenenbaums is a perfect example, as is the first encounter between Zissou and his “son” in the new film. Each scene would naturally be milked for all its emotional impact in any number of films, but Anderson merely suggests a range of emotion through an economy of language and performance. (Zissou’s encounter with Ned begins, not with nervous small-talk or earnest speculation about Ned’s lineage, but with an offhand question: “So, I don’t know if it’s true or not — do you?” [or words to that effect]).

   So, I guess I don’t see The Life Aquatic as more superficial than his other films. I just think that Anderson is bothering less and less with constructing an ostensible, slightly disingenuous emotional core and simply relishing a fantastic play of surfaces (which is really what his movies are “about” anyway).

4. Rich / 31 January 2005 / 5:34 AM

   Rushmore seemed to have a literal current running through it, there were so many references to water in it. When I first saw it, I thought it might have just been me, but after several viewings, you can’t help but think that Anderson is obsessed with water.

   For the prosecution: (1) The aquarium – Max’s major project; (2) the glory of setting sail at the start of the film to solve the maths problem suggested by the framed ship in the background; (3) reading the book “Diving for Sunken Treasure” when first discovering Miss Williams; (4) bonding with her whilst feeding the fish in the tanks of her classroom; (5) Mr Blume’s impressive bomb from the diving board; (6) Blume’s enquiry about the swimming facilities at the hotel once he has moved out owing to divorce; (7) the drowning of Miss Williams’ husband; (8) the final reconciliation between Miss Williams and Max takes place in the driving rain; (9) finally, Max’s surname is “Fis(c)her”. He may not have a rod in his hand but many people take his bait.

   I haven’t seen The Life Aquatic yet, but I hope it gets Anderson’s thing about water off his chest! Otherwise, I fear he may not be as good as he could possibly be.