Home > Life, Movies > Chabon on Anderson

Chabon on Anderson

February 3, 2013 Leave a comment Go to comments

moonrisekingdom

I don’t see all that many movies, so naming my favorite moviemaker is akin to naming my favorite West Indian cricketer. Nonetheless, if pressed to do so, I would say Wes Anderson. Rushmore. The Royal Tenenbaums. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. Genius. And last year’s Moonrise Kingdom.

Gail and I watched Moonrise Kingdom at home on Thanksgiving Eve, courtesy of iTunes and live streaming. Not ideal, I should add. There was a problem with the stream, leading to a series of two-to-three minute interruptions while we waited for the buffer to refill. Even so, the film’s brilliance shone through.

My favorite novelist? Well, that’s silly. How does one even compare, say, Lee Child and Michael Chabon, both of whose books I love? I suppose one could observe that the day a Lee Child book appears, I begin reading it. The day a Michael Chabon book appears, I do nothing. That might have significance. But it’s misleading. The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay is among my favorite novels ever. No Child book is on the list. And I’m going to get to Telegraph Avenue soon. Really.

Let’s just go out on a limb here and call Chabon my favorite novelist. Imagine, then, how cool it is to see that Chabon has a blog post at the New York Review of Books on Wes Anderson!

It doesn’t disappoint. Here’s how it starts:

The world is so big, so complicated, so replete with marvels and surprises that it takes years for most people to begin to notice that it is, also, irretrievably broken. We call this period of research “childhood.”

There follows a program of renewed inquiry, often involuntary, into the nature and effects of mortality, entropy, heartbreak, violence, failure, cowardice, duplicity, cruelty, and grief; the researcher learns their histories, and their bitter lessons, by heart. Along the way, he or she discovers that the world has been broken for as long as anyone can remember, and struggles to reconcile this fact with the ache of cosmic nostalgia that arises, from time to time, in the researcher’s heart: an intimation of vanished glory, of lost wholeness, a memory of the world unbroken. We call the moment at which this ache first arises “adolescence.” The feeling haunts people all their lives.

Everyone, sooner or later, gets a thorough schooling in brokenness. The question becomes: What to do with the pieces? Some people hunker down atop the local pile of ruins and make do, Bedouin tending their goats in the shade of shattered giants. Others set about breaking what remains of the world into bits ever smaller and more jagged, kicking through the rubble like kids running through piles of leaves. And some people, passing among the scattered pieces of that great overturned jigsaw puzzle, start to pick up a piece here, a piece there, with a vague yet irresistible notion that perhaps something might be done about putting the thing back together again.

Two difficulties with this latter scheme at once present themselves. First of all, we have only ever glimpsed, as if through half-closed lids, the picture on the lid of the jigsaw puzzle box. Second, no matter how diligent we have been about picking up pieces along the way, we will never have anywhere near enough of them to finish the job. The most we can hope to accomplish with our handful of salvaged bits—the bittersweet harvest of observation and experience—is to build a little world of our own. A scale model of that mysterious original, unbroken, half—remembered. Of course the worlds we build out of our store of fragments can be only approximations, partial and inaccurate. As representations of the vanished whole that haunts us, they must be accounted failures. And yet in that very failure, in their gaps and inaccuracies, they may yet be faithful maps, accurate scale models, of this beautiful and broken world. We call these scale models “works of art.”

From Rushmore to Moonrise Kingdom (shamefully neglected by this year’s Academy voters), Wes Anderson’s films readily, even eagerly, concede the “miniature” quality of the worlds he builds, in their set design and camera-work, in their use of stop-motion, maps, and models. And yet these miniatures span continents and decades. They comprise crime, adultery, brutality, suicide, the death of a parent, the drowning of a child, moments of profound joy and transcendence.

Read it all.

Advertisements
Categories: Life, Movies
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: