Delivery systems are crucial. The way an idea is presented has great bearing on how it is perceived/accepted. For example, the work of James Joyce belongs inherently to the world of literature. When you try to translate something like Ulysses to film the results are horrific. What sounded beautiful on the page suddenly sounds ludicrous when coming out of an actor's mouth. The ideas are the same yet in one context we accept, in the other we reject.
For years Wes Anderson has been an acquired taste. Those who love his work love it unabashedly, those who hate it dismiss it as twee, quirky and overly mannered...and then he made Fantastic Mr. Fox. While it was by no means a huge hit, Mr. Fox yielded the greatest critical reviews of Anderson's career. It's currently ranked as 93% "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes. So what had changed?
Anderson was still dealing with the same themes of family and loss, the camera moves were still precise and meticulous and the design was of course distinctly vintage. The only thing that changed here was the medium. What critics had found unbearable when performed by humans, suddenly became endearing when performed by animal puppets. Is it a fluke that three years later Moonrise Kingdom scored a 94%? Or did it just take a whistling, clicking, tail-less fox to hip them to what they were missing out on?
I agree. There was something about FMF that made his style much more approachable for some people. I've been a Wes Anderson fan for a long time but mostly when I shared his movies with others I'd just get a "I didn't get it..." and a blank stare. Maybe people see FMF as a cartoon and relaxed a little bit making it easier to enjoy the story? I loved this movie and my husband and I are obsessed with stop motion animation (and everything vintage) lol so of course we did. side note: Rushmore is probably my favorite movie of all time.
ReplyDelete