Moonrise Kingdom review
There are Wes Anderson haters, Wes Anderson apologists and then there are those people who are correct in thinking that Anderson was at one time one of the most exciting and unique filmmakers working but these days he seems to be as much of a parody as he is an director. Sadly, his latest “Moonrise Kingdom,” shows he has no interest in proving otherwise. (Please keep in mind this is coming from somebody who willing wrote up a 2200+ word essay on the trailer.) Set in 1965 - though one puzzles to imagine why, since it doesn’t seem any more period specific than his other features - the story concerns two 12 year old’s: Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) who run away to be together on a small island off the coast of New England. The film opens with the camera panning all throughout the Bishop household, laying out a geography that would basically prove to be useless later in the film. The opening of “Panic Room” does the same thing except it does it for the express purpose of establishing the spatial relation of the rooms which becomes important later in the story. This camerawork just wants to draw attention to itself.
After an introduction that establishes all of the major townspeople - Scout Master Ward (Edward Norton), Police Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) and Suzy’s parents Laura (Frances McDormand) and Walt (Bill Murray) - we’re finally introduced to our young lovers. After a brief flashback (the “What kind of bird are you?” shown in the trailers) the two set off on their adventure. There are fleeting moments that capture the awkwardness of adolescence and infatuation of young love but for the most part those emotions are buried. Anderson has lost his grip on character, story and sadly even humor. The adults are all posturing and the kids do their best line readings delivering dialogue that is neither realistic for that age nor as clever as it had ought to be to justify the stylization. To steal a page from the Red Letter Media critique of the “Star Wars” prequels, it would be difficult to describe the personality of one of the characters in “Moonrise Kingdom” without describing what they look like or what their profession is. They’re all window dressing.
We’re told that Willis’ sheriff is dumb but we’re never shown anything in his character that leads us to this conclusion other than the dialogue. And because the characterizations are so thin, there’s no real catharsis here or scene that packs the emotional punch of Ritchie’s attempted suicide in ‘Tenenbaums’ or Max’s rejection in ‘Rushmore.’ Despite all the stylistic trappings of the earlier films, there was still real emotion there and moments that cut through the arch humor. Anderson proves to be his own worst enemy here, undercutting the intended emotions by not allowing anything to play realistically. And he also indulges some of his worst tendencies: Bob Balaban’s onscreen narrator (no doubt cribbed from some French New Wave film or old TV commercial) is probably the most egregious. Despite the 60s setting Anderson has opted to stay mostly away from the pop music from the era that he’s used in all his other films, opting instead for some classical music and score by Alexandre Desplat that has traces of (a less sinister) “Suspiria.”
Future generations look back at the downward arc of Anderson’s film career and ask, ‘What happened?’ The answer is a simple one: he’s surrounded himself with Yes People, who confirm that everything he’s doing is great and that has allowed him to block out any criticism, even when it may be true or for his own benefit. This unchecked ego led to many of the great filmmakers of the ’70s to start making lesser films as because they started believing their own hype and it has ossified Anderson as a storyteller. Unfortunately as long as his fans continue to support him, it doesn’t look like any kind of wake up call is on the horizon for him. His idea of growing is simply changing the setting of his films (New York, Italy, India, the 60’s). And while you have to admire him for completely ignoring his detractors, one would have hoped that somewhere along the way he would have found his own way to evolve as so many others of his generation did. If it sounds like I’m being harsh, maybe I am. The movie is pleasant, certainly not a chore to get through, but for someone who has invested so much faith in a filmmaker who showed such promise, it’s an incredibly frustrating thing to watch idly.
