To be
honest, I can say that before watching Moonrise
Kingdom, I’ve only ever watched one Wes Anderson film, and that was his
acclaimed The Royal Tenenbaums which
I did really enjoy, but in all fairness, there is a certain point where you
have to look yourself in the mirror and say ‘can I take any more of this
whimsical stuff?’ Well that’s what you get whenever you sit down to watch an
Anderson film. A lot of fairy-tale and whimsical stuff flying out at you from
the screen and you just seem to go along with it. You could say that the main
synopsis of this film is quite simple, two people who fall in love and meet up
and go into a forest to spend the rest of their lives together, there’s nothing
wrong here until you find out that the star crossed lovers are actually 13.
Although I did enjoy the film as a whole, you kind of feel really weird when
you finish the film and think, did I actually just watch a film where two
thirteen year olds were half naked for at least 20 minutes of the film. At this
point you realise that even though it wasn’t intended, there may be something
quite wrong with this film.
However, I
will continue with the plot of the film which follows young Sam, played by
newcomer Jared Gilman, missing from his scout troupe and has been revealed to
be an orphan and who’s leader, played magnificently by Edward Norton, goes on a
hunt to be able to find him. It is revealed that Sam is running away from the
scouts to be able to be with oddball Suzy (Kara Haywood) who also seems to have
family troubles, with a family run by Bill Murray (but in my opinion, why would
you want to run away from a family who’s run by Bill Murray?) As the story goes
along, we follow how Sam and Suzy become friends and form a relationship whilst
most of the scouts and the towns policeman, who is portrayed by Bruce Willis,
try to track them down. All this while one of the biggest storms in the town’s
history is about to hit. Although the story is shown to just be a template of a
regular love story, I think the spin Anderson tries to put on it gives it more
of an edge compared to other so called love stories where it tries to show that
falling in love is a big thing and shouldn’t be taken lightly. 
In terms of
style, I believe that this has been the main focus on the productions mind as
even from the first scenes of Norton patrolling his troops. You get the feel
that the style is very controlled and ordered and seems to be split into three
parts with the main focus on what is in the middle of the screen. This idea has
been used in countless Anderson films and just adds to the whimsy to the whole
picture, and we get the idea that a natural force will disrupt what happens to
the characters static and ordered lives. The cinematography in this film could
be said to be classic Anderson as he rarely uses cuts or transitions to move
along the story but instead favouring to a tracking shot of the whole scene,
also you get the sense of a very nostalgic feel to the whole film, with it
being set in the 60s, we get the idea that the camera has been tinted to give
the feel of a home video or a very 60s style film. Also, with the idea that
kids are involved, I get the sense that it is looking back for people who may
have been children at that time and the nostalgic feel to the picture is
justified with the pastel colours of setting shows what the 60s may have looked
like. With style, I had the impression that the style of the film was determined
by what character was on screen, for example, whenever we see Sam, Suzy or Ed
Norton’s character. I felt that the style was heightened to show what the
character was like, as they are shown to be quite childlike but with Bill
Murray’s character, the style was shown to be darker and more melodramatic to
suit the character’s depressing nature. 
Probably
what I most enjoyed about the film is the cast, the performances from Ed Norton,
Bill Murray and Bruce Willis. They just had this certain feel about it that they
actually were the characters played on screen, especially with Willis’
character as audiences are usually only associate him with blockbuster action
films, so it was quite a surprise to see him in quite a quirky movie like this.
I think his performance suited what the character was trying to get across,
which is that growing up too fast isn’t always the right thing to do and that
enjoying childhood whilst you can should be praised. Now, if I was going to
criticise this film in any way would be the more, shall we say romantically
charged scenes between Sam and Suzy. At the time of production, the actors used
to play these characters were only 12 years old, and for some reason, Wes
Anderson thought it would be a good idea to have them to be half naked for at
least 20 minutes of the film and have them kiss numerous times whilst Sam ‘cops
a feel’. I’m not saying that its perverted in any way but it may seem a bit
seedy to people who actually haven’t watched the film, like if I showed a
random person that 20 minutes, they would want Wes Andersons’ head on a pike
but in the context of the film, I suppose it isn’t too bad. I’m not saying I
enjoyed that part because out of the whole film, it made me feel quite
uncomfortable, with the idea that Anderson actually asked them to do this, and
on film but you know, if you want to make a quirky film, you have to work with
some strange people.
So overall,
I did enjoy the film to a certain extent, with the films overarching style and
sort of mocking pastiche of the 60s America. With the performances by some of
the actors, notably Edward’s Norton portrayal of a scout leader just sort of
shows that even adults still want to be like kids or how Bill Murray is just
amazing as usually. Also the use of nostalgic camera movement and colours to
give the feel of the 60s should be given praise but the one flaw are those
really strange 20 minutes which well, just made it feel like a really strange
experience. To recommend this film may seem like an odd task now by saying that
there are some really bizarre moments in it but just give it a chance, you may
actually think that there is a meaning to it, but I don’t really see it myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment