Ever since “Bottle Rocket,” Wes Anderson has earned his fair share of detractors who decry everything from the director’s trademark quirks and twee set designs, to his constant return to familiar themes of rivalry and familial dysfunction. While fans will argue whether “Rushmore” or “The Royal Tenenbaums” was the director’s peak, it’s safe to say that everyone agrees that with “The Darjeeling Limited,” Anderson was spinning his wheels.
The impending release of Anderson’s latest endeavor, “The Fantastic Mr. Fox,” marks a number of firsts for the director. It’s his first film adapted from a book, his first fully animated feature (not counting Henry Selick’s creatures in “The Life Aquatic”) and his first family film. But that hasn’t stopped the knives from coming out, including a rather hilariously inept screed by the Guardian film blogger Ryan Gilbey. Gilbey breathlessly takes Anderson to task for involving himself with a project that will have marketing tie-ins with McDonald’s. He writes:
Perhaps Anderson was so fixated on the process of making “Fantastic Mr. Fox” that he forgot that films have a life beyond the screen. Any director is diminished by such an association, but someone like Anderson in particular should not be getting into bed with McDonald’s, and using his work to lure young children into destructive eating habits; it’s a lose-lose situation. He looks like a chump, the film becomes tainted, and obesity levels continue to rocket.
While Gilbey is busy blaming Anderson for America’s obesity problem, he seems to ignore a few facts about how licensing deals get made. Firstly, before he sets up a queue at Anderson’s door, he might want start off in his own backyard and take up his concerns with the Roald Dahl estate, one of Britain’s national treasures, for allowing the characters to be used in such a way. Any licensing deal would certainly have to have been signed off by the family before Fox, or even Anderson got involved. Also, if he had bothered to do any cursory research, he would’ve learned that this isn’t the first time a Dahl property has been licensed to McDonald’s. Remember, “James And The Giant Peach”? Yeah, that film had a massive McDonald’s tie-in as well and the Dahl family would’ve had to sign off on that one too.
Secondly, licensing deals help secure profitability for a film. While Fox certainly chose Anderson for his inventiveness, they are taking a chance with a director who has no previous experience in delivering a blockbuster family film. These licensing deals help the film’s bottom line, particularly in the event it doesn’t perform as expected.
To bolster his argument, Gilbey trots out a quote from “Ratatouille” director Brad Bird who explains that Pixar/Disney didn’t do a licensing deal with McDonald’s for that film because, “[Disney] realized their brand really stands for something and it can only be in their best interest not to align themselves with unhealthy eating. So you won’t be finding Ratatouille merchandise at any fast-food outlets.” Of course, it surely had nothing to do with the fact that the film was about fine dining, and it certainly didn’t stop them for licensing the hell out of the film anyway and making everything from video games to action figures to cook books.
The issue of marketing of fast food and toys to children is a complicated one, but putting all that at the door of Wes Anderson — or any director — is unfair. The decision to create tie-ins with multiple companies, including McDonald’s, was probably made long before Anderson’s name dried on the contract. Is he complicit in parents shoving cheeseburgers down their kids throats? At the most, maybe peripherally, but practicing good food habits is a far more involved issue involving education, economic status and whole host of other topics we’re not going to get into here. McDonald’s is merely at the end of a long chain of issues that guides the way America eats today.
Sure, the combination of Wes Anderson and McDonald’s probably makes for a very sexy, reactionary headline (see what we did there?), but the truth, as usual, is far more complex.
“The Fantastic Mr. Fox” opens on November 25th. Happy Meal not included.
"t's safe to say that everyone agrees that with 'The Darjeeling Limited,' Anderson was spinning his wheels."
No. It's not safe to say that.
It's funny though how everyone hates the one Anderson film that breaks through the distancing smug hipsterism that everyone seems to dislike him for.
"No. It's not safe to say that. "
Yes, it was.
I didn't say it wasn't safe to think Anderson was spinning his wheels, I said it isn't safe to say everyone thinks that.
Oh look, here's a post from just this morning from someone who doesn't think so. He writes for The New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2009/10/the-darjeeling-limited.html
Kevin is speaking of a general consensus. I don't think he literally meant every single individual.
Yeah, I know. I was just being a kneejerk supporter. Also, I really liked Darjeeling. I admit it's not a popular stance.
I like Darjeeling too, but it's not his 3rd best either. Aquatic is still the stinker. And anyone who thinks the pinnacle of his work is anything but Rushmore is eternally dead to me. 😉
(only half joking).
It seems to be a toss-up among people whether Darjeeling or Aquatic is the weakest link. I'd probably also have to go with Aquatic, though there are so many things about it that I love it's hard for me to say.
Rushmore was the first for a lot of people and sometimes the first is the best. I lost my Coen virginity with Raising Arizona and it's my favorite, though I'll admit they've made richer and more mature films since then.
I'd argue it's similar with Rushmore. There's an energy and a snap and a freshness to it that has never been duplicated, but I also think Anderson more fully developed some of his ideas later on.
It's hard to argue against Rushmore as something of a perfect film though…unless you just don't like Anderson.
I can't shake the feeling that Wes Anderson is never going to make another great film. It's not that each film is too difficult or ambitious. It's the opposite — they feel slapdash, even clumsy at times.
To touch upon that Weezer/Wes analogy: their fans keep waiting for a return to glory that never comes. Every subsequent effort will have its defenders, but no one's proclaiming them to be new classics.
How appropriate that Weezer is about to release a wanna-be Top 40 album just as Wes is releasing an animated kids movie! Not that they can't necessarily be good, but the move towards mass appeal is not a great sign for these "artists."
Weezer has been making Top 40 albums since the Blue album.
@last Anon.
Two playlisters saw Fantastic Fox last night. It's cute, charming, if slight little picture. Prolly in the scheme of things a better front-to-back movie than Darjeeling and Life Aquatic.
Was pleasantly surprised. By now means a "great" movie, but a solid, tiny little film. Enjoyable is the best word for it, really.
I just want to address Anonymous and say that some of the best films of this year have been technically "kids' movies" regardless of whether or not they had mass appeal. There's nothing wrong with making something suitable for all ages.