RE: positive masculinity—my experience has been, as a man who loves women, that my fellow straight men don’t really believe I love women, or don’t seem to believe in their hearts that it’s possible to love women. And for this reason life as a man who loves women can be quite lonely.
Take: Wes Anderson is the filmmaker most like an RCT economist, in that he imposes an implausible level of order so as to isolate and closely study a facet of life.
True banger, and what fun to read! I’ll never think of Wes Anderson without thinking of this essay. I’d be curious if you have any thoughts on “Bottle Rocket,” but I don’t mean to request even more work than you’ve done here.
[edit: the below was actually me thinking of Rushmore, not Bottle Rocket]
Bottle Rocket is my least favourite of the Wes films I have seen (I haven't seen quite a few though; i might see life aquatic and darjeeling still, but i doubt i'll ever see isle of dogs). In some ways Bottle Rocket is interesting purely because you can see him kind of developing into the style he comes to a bit later. I don't really *like it* per se, but it's sort of gelatinously unformed in the way that early work kind of should be -- you can tell he's a genius already because he made it at age 21 or whatever, but you can also tell he's kind of just getting started. (Actually, the same is true of Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis.)
It is such an “early film from a yet to be in charge artist” or “early film from a later more opinionated / developed artist,” is wild for that alone. It’s interesting to me because it’s so clear how observant he is in it: the observations (of e.g. Texan upper middle class young people) haven’t been complexly used or refracted, just made into comedy, and they’re quite sharp. It also feels Tarantino-tainted, 90s-warped: the criminality is so out of alignment with its scene and its nature of characterization. I’ve been compared very often to Dignan (by friends more like Anthony or even Future Man), so I retain a lot of affection for it. The love story is strange as all get out, seems highly artificial. Weird movie, very popular in my set though! I couldn’t take Isle of Dogs at all; really rough.
But yeah: partly fun to watch just to see the things that would bloom later in his style and all! Thanks again, loved this post!
This essay made me think back to when I saw Bottle Rocket on VHS and felt that it was a new kind of comedy, but i didn’t have the tools to think of or talk about the the aesthetics of storytelling/cinema/comedy back then.
I’m liking this even more as i go through it a second time. I hope this response doesn’t come across as virtue signaling— i’m not that virtuous— or gratuitous/insensitive, etc., but if things like meticulous timing, nuance, obsession over subtle details, willful use of style, and dedication to a personal aesthetic that’s more subversive than is immediately apparent are “queer-coded,” then it seems to me that maybe my work has a foot in that world. I hope I’m understanding this correctly; I like that idea.
RE: positive masculinity—my experience has been, as a man who loves women, that my fellow straight men don’t really believe I love women, or don’t seem to believe in their hearts that it’s possible to love women. And for this reason life as a man who loves women can be quite lonely.
Unfortunately that sounds pretty aligned with what I'd expect, which is baffling and sad in one sense, and depressingly predictable in another. <3
Take: Wes Anderson is the filmmaker most like an RCT economist, in that he imposes an implausible level of order so as to isolate and closely study a facet of life.
(Grand Budapest Hotel is a perfect movie).
Okay this is an incredible insight. I would never have thought of it that way but you're totally right.
True banger, and what fun to read! I’ll never think of Wes Anderson without thinking of this essay. I’d be curious if you have any thoughts on “Bottle Rocket,” but I don’t mean to request even more work than you’ve done here.
THANK YOU MILLS.
[edit: the below was actually me thinking of Rushmore, not Bottle Rocket]
Bottle Rocket is my least favourite of the Wes films I have seen (I haven't seen quite a few though; i might see life aquatic and darjeeling still, but i doubt i'll ever see isle of dogs). In some ways Bottle Rocket is interesting purely because you can see him kind of developing into the style he comes to a bit later. I don't really *like it* per se, but it's sort of gelatinously unformed in the way that early work kind of should be -- you can tell he's a genius already because he made it at age 21 or whatever, but you can also tell he's kind of just getting started. (Actually, the same is true of Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis.)
It is such an “early film from a yet to be in charge artist” or “early film from a later more opinionated / developed artist,” is wild for that alone. It’s interesting to me because it’s so clear how observant he is in it: the observations (of e.g. Texan upper middle class young people) haven’t been complexly used or refracted, just made into comedy, and they’re quite sharp. It also feels Tarantino-tainted, 90s-warped: the criminality is so out of alignment with its scene and its nature of characterization. I’ve been compared very often to Dignan (by friends more like Anthony or even Future Man), so I retain a lot of affection for it. The love story is strange as all get out, seems highly artificial. Weird movie, very popular in my set though! I couldn’t take Isle of Dogs at all; really rough.
But yeah: partly fun to watch just to see the things that would bloom later in his style and all! Thanks again, loved this post!
OH MY GOD I WAS THINKING OF RUSHMORE SORRY
i havent seen bottle rocket!
He is an unbelievably acute observer of people. It drives me fucking nuts that people can’t at least see that and give him credit for it.
This essay made me think back to when I saw Bottle Rocket on VHS and felt that it was a new kind of comedy, but i didn’t have the tools to think of or talk about the the aesthetics of storytelling/cinema/comedy back then.
I didn’t realize how central timing is to what works about Wes Anderson until I watched those editor podcasts
I’m liking this even more as i go through it a second time. I hope this response doesn’t come across as virtue signaling— i’m not that virtuous— or gratuitous/insensitive, etc., but if things like meticulous timing, nuance, obsession over subtle details, willful use of style, and dedication to a personal aesthetic that’s more subversive than is immediately apparent are “queer-coded,” then it seems to me that maybe my work has a foot in that world. I hope I’m understanding this correctly; I like that idea.
Not only is that non-virtue-signally, when I was writing the essay I actually thought of you along these lines :)
That is high praise, thank you!
This is easily the best thing I could have read this morning and I love your subscribe line at the end
Thank you Steph :)))) !
I think this also explains why people don't perceive Wes' movies as fun even though a bunch of them have action set pieces, heists, chases, etc.
Oh extremely well observed. Thank you for this addition
Thank *you* for writing this essay which had me literally snapping my fingers in understanding
I am delighted to hear this :)
so good, and made me reconsider wes anderson entirely. thank you for sharing!
Thank you for this essay. I love your voice as a writer.
Thank you! I work hard on the voice (it’s way too easy to lapse into like generic substack voice or whatever alas) so I appreciate the praise :)