FANTASTIC MR FOX (2009)

Posted by Daniel Metz

Am I disappointed by Wes Anderson’s newest film, an animated, extended version of a children’s novel by Roald Dahl? I must admit I was pretty excited for the film. Anderson is one of our best directors, and I spent the past week watching Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou in anticipation for his latest effort. Re-viewing these much-loved films reminded me of how much I love him as a filmmaker, and how I appreciate not only his striking deep-focus, moving camera, in-frame symmetry, and other gorgeous camera work, but also his witty and insightful screenplays. I have always felt that a film goes from good to great it if has both a story and visuals (style and content) that complement each other, and Anderson is adept at achieving this. Watching these films also reminded me how skilled Anderson is at drawing immature characters, most notably the precocious Max Fischer, the emotionally stunted Margot/Richie/Chas Tenenbaums, and the father-seeking Kingsley (Ned) Zissou. This assured me that Fantastic Mr. Fox, by all appearances a children’s film, would have some depth behind it. Add to this the fact that, like Life Aquatic, the screenplay was co-written by one of my favorite writer/directors, Noah Baumbach, and I was beginning to develop some high expectations. Baumbach’s 2005 The Squid and the Whale is one of the most honest portrayals of young people in cinema history, so he, as his friend and collaborator Anderson, also has a skill at depicting the youth in cinema (Quick diversion: Baumbach’s new film Greenberg has a trailer here, and it reminds me yet again that Jennifer Jason Leigh is one of my absolute favorite actresses working today). To make matters worse, The New Yorker magazine did a spread on Anderson earlier in the month that definitely hyped him and the film to me.

The director at work, playing God in a counterfeit world.

I went into this film with these high expectations, also under the spell of Where the Wild Things Are. For that film, Spike Jonze made a children’s film that was not condescending or over-simplified; instead, he made a beautiful and touching film about youth that did not ever pander to underdeveloped minds. I realize now that I was mistaken in hoping that Anderson could top Jonze’s effort. Beginning with “Heroes and Villains” by the Beach Boys, the film assured me that Anderson was up to his old tricks. All of his stylish flourishes are there to see and hear, but this time the actors are toy animals and the backgrounds are models. Unfortunately, the imagery that is so key in Anderson’s films is here cheapened by the animation. Yes, it is amazing to look at. It is clear that too much time was spent on tailoring tiny costumes, creating dozens of cider bottles, crafting miniscule thumb tacks, dictophones, apple-ginger snaps, etc. The other stuff, however, that makes him great as a director seems easy and wasted. How difficult is it to achieve deep focus on a set that is measured in inches rather than feet? Likewise, a crane or dolly shot is so obviously simple on a model that it cannot inspire the awe that a scene like the halved boat-tour in Life Aquatic can. How is the stylized mise-en-scene of an artificial, animated film supposed to compare to the extreme-control that Anderson uses in giving his live-action, shot-on-location movies that distinctive style? In a film like Rushmore, every detail of the real-world is altered to fit into an aesthetic, but in this film it is invented and painted on. As I said, it all comes off as cheap, short-cut filmmaking.

Like the movie, it looks good, but something's off...

All of this could be forgiven, however, if the story was there. It isn’t. The adventure story, similar in some ways to The Darjeeling Limited, is action-packed but lacks the emotional depth that that and his other efforts had. There is no breakdown here, and no show-stopping moments like the short-story recitation by Schwarzman in that film. Instead, there is a glossed message about individualism (so underdeveloped) amid a swirl of cheap jokes and simple characters. The jealousies, pride, regret, and affection are all played at surface level, allowing for no subtlety or introspection. There is actually a line in this movie like, “I am so proud you are my son.” Such dreck does not belong in legitimate cinema. I am not sure what Baumbach did to this film, but I want to believe it was very little.

The cast is strong, I suppose, and there are some nice performances by Meryl Streep and Bill Murray. Owen Wilson is entirely wasted, George Clooney is as uncharismastic as always, and Schwartzman is not believable as a young fox. Some notice should go to the glorious cameo by Willem Dafoe as the rat security guard; he steals the two scenes he is in with a funny accent and decent jokes. Dafoe has been so busy this season, appearing in Antichrist, Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant, the new Herzog movie My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done, this film, and the upcoming Daybreakers.

Even my strange attraction to Mrs. Fox didn't save the picture.

It is certainly not a memorable film, and I am working already to forget it. When will good filmmakers stop catering to children? I’ve said it about Pixar, and now I’ll say it about Wes Anderson, too: you are talented at making films. Do not waste it on condescending simplicity. Seek subtlety, seek love, seek bliss, but do not seek ease. Anderson, who is proud to admit his cinematic heritage, needs to take a lesson from the French people he so admires. Truffaut’s film The 400 Blows, for instance, is a film about children that could never be considered childish. Do what he does. Could you imagine Godard, Renoir, Fellini, Bergman, etc, making movies like Fantastic Mr. Fox? These are his icons, and he should remember that they didn’t feel the need to cater to the money-making opportunities of juvenile cinema, and neither should he. It is insulting to his legacy, and it is insulting to his legitimate fans (myself definitely included), who hope that he will continuing making the kind of picture that will be cherished in films schools forty years from now, granted we are not all destroyed by a meteor in 2012.

Back to the basics.

I’d also like to add a note about the trailers I saw preceding the film. First was Tim Burton’s new Johnny Depp vehicle, Alice in Wonderland. I am already looking forward to this film, but I promise to be reserved, as it may have the same faults as this film. Please, Tim Burton (another great living director), do not make an idiotic movie that adults cannot enjoy wholeheartedly. The picture looks dark and wacky. Next was a trailer for The Princess and the Frog, a modern twist on the old fable. This is a Disney picture, and seems to be a return to classic, pre-millennium Disney animation. I wouldn’t possibly see it, but I am glad to see that animation style coming back.