You were good to see again, when I could actually hear the dialogue, being the only hipster in the room (my living room). The screening was brought on by a recent re-viewing of Royal T’s, and I’d been burning to see Rushmore again for a while (a weird burning, considering I own it), maybe since I saw I ❤ Huckabees. Anyway, as far as major Wes Anderson themes are concerned—that is, incest and (subsequent) non-reproductive families—I think Rushmore still wins. You are, in a way, basically Rushmore from the perspective of the father, but there’s something not quite right about that, too, as Royal T’s is supposed to be the same thing. Still, there is a way in which Royal is a rough draft for Steve. I’m not sure Steve would have made a lot of sense without the scenes of Royal with Ari and Uzi.
You’re also not quite as precious as I remembered. Sure, the movie is artificial as hell (”Let me tell you about my boat.”), but it carries enough affective charge for me to have even noticed it during the first screening at Doc. And though I cried during “Starálfur” during the first viewing and not the second, it still worked without being cheesy or silly. Furthermore, a lot of your preciousness, perceived or otherwise, is an artifact of your primary themes—incest and non-reproductive familial arrangements. Steve’s initial reaction to Ned, and his saying that he never wanted to be a father, is perfect. Yet, at the same time, Steve plays into the thematics of ownership, and gives his name (along with his desired name) to his kid. And that’s a Peter Pan complex. Incest grows out of immaturity—you’re too immature to realise that you have to work outside of the family strucutre, and non-reproduction comes out of immaturity, too; you don’t have the apparatus to perform your natural role as adult: propagation. And so we get Steve as a man-child (though I hate that term), in his little trainset in the basement (the Belafonte), with a bunch of men and unavailable women. Incest finally grows out of insularity, be that a form of bigotry (we get that in all of Anderson’s work) or physical confinement (that too).
Steve is perhaps more interested in having a slightly obesequious sidekick more than a son—he wants a Robin. Klaus he calls his little brother (Klaus curiously replies that he always considered Steve his father), and he takes up with Werner and Cubbie’s kid right away, even faster than with Ned, who may have been his actual, biological kin.
What does this say about Wes Anderson that he can only make movies about emotionally stunted men who want to sleep with their mothers in a not-really-Freudian way? I have no idea. I imagine his next project will show us.
Finally, I don’t know what my earlier comment about the Kinks and Mothersbaugh was about. Your music is still deadly great, and Seu Jorge is fantastic. Sofia Coppola may have cornered the market on raiding my CD collection to make great soundtracks, but Wes is way ahead of the curve in making soundtracks that end up in my CD collection.
August 8th, 2005 at 13:29
one, you’re full of it (”artifact of your primary themes” somehow seems a bit forced)
two, this site takes way too long to load.
other than that, did you actually *like* this movie? that’s not loaded either way, i just can’t tell from
the apostrophe. can you really call “nonreproductive familial arrangements” a theme?
August 8th, 2005 at 14:00
1. The fact that just about every quirk about the movie can be reduced to ephemera of incest doesn’t make me full of it.
2. traffic is down, hopefully to pre-k4r33n4 levels. That it’s loading slow, I dunno. Feel like passing a hat around and drumming up ~$130 for a 256mb stick of RDRAM? That would make the 1984 PRODUKTS family whistle.
Yes, I liked the movie. I thought this would be clear because I went on about incest for so long. Anything about incest is fascinating to me, which means I like it. I will most likely acquire this movie in digital video disc format in the near future, though not very near future, as I went to Picante Grill once this pay period already.
Finally, yes. It can be called a theme, because of what is implied when the “preferred” or “equilibrium” relationships are arranged that way. What does it mean that a text goes out of its way to create situations where people can’t make babies? Is it a reflection of bigotry (Sun Also Rises)? A critique of heteronormativity? I don’t know. Not yet. This is a snap apostrophe, so it just sort of paints in broad-ass strokes.
August 8th, 2005 at 14:40
Also, I applied img referer denys for non local requests, which could slow down some traffic if people are hotlinking to any of the graphics on any of the sites on this machine. But that means that if you upload a photo, you can’t send a buddy your http://blah.com/blah/picture.jpg url and have it work. The picture has to be on a page.