The Darjeeling Limited

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kentertainment
  • Start date Start date
Maybe you should actually watch the film again. You'd find that it isn't like that at all. Far from it, in fact. There was a helluva lot of detail in that film, and I find it to be an extremely visually memorable film. I think it's far lazier and easier to just shoot traditional coverage, and patch it all together in post, than it is to shoot long takes with complex camera movement. Look at the wedding scene in Tenenbaums, after Eli crashes his car and Chas chases him around. It's one really long shot, craning up and down and dollying all about, from one little mini-scene to another. That film has a lot of camera movement and coverage, and "discipline for composition". In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's an incredibly well-shot film.
 
I'm also baffled by that last "monkey" comment. The shots were painstakenly composed. I think its a very memorable film visually. And I like his deep depth of field- a nice change from the over-use of rack focus shots. It's also the reason his art department and set designers are overworked--the background actually matters.

To each his own.
 
Tlalconetl said:
Please. There was very little "attention to detail and discipline for composition" in Royal. If there had been, the film would have been more memorable visually. Nearly every shot was a wide angle master. This is just the easiest way to shoot a movie. A monkey can shoot like this.
Click to expand...

Dude...you know not of what you speak.

Seven second shots pasted together to make a scene because the general assumption is Americans can't sit still for longer shots is what any monkey could do...and they have been doing it for years.

Long, deep focused shots are considered more European, and more artistic. One of my films in school was a 6 minute comedy...and one unedited shot. My classmates didn't really get it, but when I told my Instructor about it (a working DP), he immediately started talking about Pasolini. He was looking forward to seeing it more than I was.

I'm not saying you're wrong to not have liked the film...I think I might not be too impressed with it when I see it since I have liked his stuff less and less since Rushmore. I'm just saying don't knock the auteur style, and the use of long takes. You may not be used to it, but it is a very pleasing style.

There might be many parts of the film you find fault with, and maybe long continuous shots just added to that. Rushmore had long takes, and you posted how you enjoyed that film. Don't be so quick to judge what you don't understand.
 
Last edited:
The Life Aquatic gave me a very deep and special and impassioned and personal feeling for being the second film I've ever openly walked out on (the first being Simone).

A laughable attempt at a film, so atrocious it caused convulsions of the spine. I got out before the inevitable paralyzation.

That said, I kinda liked Rushmore, and Royal Tenenbaum's, though still a convoluted mess, had its moments for certain.

I doubt I will even bother with Darjeeling.
 
If you watch Baraka, one of the opening shots will prove that monkeys have a longer attention span than humans do. :grin:

Billy and DeSica, good points.
 
I like Tenenbaum's and bought the Criterion Collection dvd of it (for 10 bucks on sale at Best Buy).

I really wanna see Darjeeling. The prequel Hotel Chevalier is amazing. AND its a free download on ITunes
 
jpeck said:
If you watch Baraka, one of the opening shots will prove that monkeys have a longer attention span than humans do. :grin:

Billy and DeSica, good points.
Click to expand...

I'm going to be controversial and say a short attention span is actually a sign of intelligence. Our ability to process visual information faster than other creatures is one of the reasons we're at the top of the food chain.
 
Batutta said:
Our ability to process visual information faster than other creatures is one of the reasons we're at the top of the food chain.
Click to expand...

Agreed. When "Old Timers" say its a shame today that kids grow up watching MTV and then make super quick cutting flicks, and that it gives them a head ache, I just shake my head and say "sry old man, you're time has passed" ;)

And while I hate Anderson's last couple flicks, I'd never call his filming style "lazy". Maybe "stale" at this point, but never lazy.
 
Batutta said:
I'm going to be controversial and say a short attention span is actually a sign of intelligence. Our ability to process visual information faster than other creatures is one of the reasons we're at the top of the food chain.
Click to expand...

If you wanted to be controversial you would have said humans are not at the top of the food chain.
 
Batutta said:
I'm going to be controversial and say a short attention span is actually a sign of intelligence. Our ability to process visual information faster than other creatures is one of the reasons we're at the top of the food chain.
Click to expand...

It is if you are processing the information just as quickly. If you just get bored unless things are shiny and blinky, you might just be an idiot.

If you really like fast edits and short shots, watch Spun. I believe it set the record for edits in a film, and Schwartzman is in it, so you get the best of both worlds...

A Wes Anderson regular and short takes.
 
For the record, I'm not a fan of movies that are visually busy just to be visually busy. There must be a point to the technique. But as a filmmaker I think you'd be remiss not to exploit the audiences ability to grasp more information more quickly. This is what was successful about Peter Jackson's adaptation of Lord of The Rings. He used every modern filmmaking trick he could to cram as much narrative as possible into three hours. When you look at the films the amount of storylines and character arcs he had to juggle was staggering, even at the lengths they are. Basically I'm saying shorter attention spans can be used to tell MORE story, not just show more shots. This is one of my problem's with M. Night's languid style. His films often seem like one hour of story stretched out to 2 hours. In the Sixth Sense the slow pacing helped to build a sense of dread and tension, but in Unbreakable I felt it just made the story less exciting than it could be.
 
just saw the Darjeeling Limited. i enjoyed it a lot. i'm a wes anderson fan, and thought this is his best to date. it was shot beautfiully (as per usual Wes Anderson movies, the DP was awesome). i thought the acting was top notch on all parts. adrien brody is an underrated actor IMO (yes i know he won an Oscar, but people don't give him enough credit), Owen Wilson was good, as was Jason Schwartzman.

The writing was very good as well. I laughed quite a few times. very enjoyable movie. i really want to see it again.
 
ZFarms said:
just saw the Darjeeling Limited. i enjoyed it a lot. i'm a wes anderson fan, and thought this is his best to date. it was shot beautfiully (as per usual Wes Anderson movies, the DP was awesome). i thought the acting was top notch on all parts. adrien brody is an underrated actor IMO (yes i know he won an Oscar, but people don't give him enough credit), Owen Wilson was good, as was Jason Schwartzman.

The writing was very good as well. I laughed quite a few times. very enjoyable movie. i really want to see it again.
Click to expand...

You get Wes Anderson movies in hell?...I would think they only showed movies by the Wayans Brothers.
 
I am sure they have Polanski down there as well. If so, it is starting to sound like a great place.

Plus, us 'westerners' would finally be able to see Kim Jong-il's movie, which he claims is the best ever made!
 
I'm a huge Wes Anderson film, so let me preface my stance on all his other films first

Bottle Rocket: a little rough around the edges, you can tell Anderson is finding his style. very funny and you can see that great films will come after this one

Rushmore: brilliant film. excellent performances from everyone in the film (esp bill murray). film leaves you with a good feeling and you feel like you went on a journey with the main character

Royal Tenenbaums: excellent. everything comes together perfectly in this film. every detail is important to the film. perfect script all the way around acted by an amazing cast. comedic genius, hilarious film

The Life Aquatic: by this film you're either an Anderson fan or you're not and if you're not a fan and you're complaining about this film, you're barking up the wrong tree. that being said this is a great movie, probably my favorite Anderson film. not only is this film hilarious it's very touching (I'll admit I tear up almost every time I watch it). there's so much of this film that I absolutely love.

I just watched the darjeeling limited and then came home and watched hotel chevalier and here's my takes:

Hotel Chevalier: very intriguing and well written. consistent with Anderson's other writings and films. every detail matters and there is a depth to the film that makes you wonder why their relationship is where its at. if I had watched this short before the film I would have been more excited about it and thus more disappointed in the film

Darjeeling Limited: I dunno if it was because this was the first Anderson film that I saw on the big screen (and thus actually saw previews for the film so some of it was given away. Have I mentioned that I HATE previews?), or that I was looking forward to seeing the film (and subconsciously putting too much expectation on it), or if it was the guy behind me in the theater that was laughing at EVERY SINGLE THING in the movie, but this one just seemed off to me. Unlike his other films, this one seemed to have alot of extra details that didn't mean anything. The film also seemed to lean on too many things from previous films as a crutch (characters always smoking, estranged siblings/parents, an overly controlling and structured main character, etc.). Also, Anderson's very controlled style (which I enjoy) seemed like a bad choice in the uncontrolled surroundings of the film. I think the film seemed flat and perhaps that was because the whole point of the story was "the spiritual journey" unlike his other films where the real meaning/moral of the film was realized through other events or circumstances. And after seeing that Hotel Chevalier was written only by Anderson and that the feature was written by Anderson and 2 new writing partners, perhaps that was why the short was well written in typical fashion and the feature was lacking.

Anyways that's my two cents
 
Last edited:
Love Wes Anderson.
having said that, here's this :D

September 24, 2007 | Issue 43•39


New Wes Anderson Film Features Deadpan Delivery, Meticulous Art Direction, Characters With Father Issues

LOS ANGELES—Fans who attended a sneak preview Monday of critically acclaimed director Wes Anderson's newest project, The Darjeeling Limited, were surprised to learn that the film features a deadpan comedic tone, highly stylized production design, and a plot centering around unresolved family issues.

"What will he think of next?" audience member Michael Cauley said. "And who could have foreseen the elaborately crafted '60s-era aesthetic, melancholy subtext, and quirky nomenclature—to say nothing of the unexpected curveball of casting Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman, and Bill Murray?"

In a recent review, New York Times film critic A.O. Scott also expressed surprise at the film's cutting-edge soundtrack, which features a Rolling Stones song and three different tracks by the Kinks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top