Nathaniel Alexander

First and foremost, it's not a film for everyone, and that's ok. But I'll tell you why I enjoyed this movie so much. The setting was very well depicted, and it fully immersed you into the real world version of such a scene. I'm a big fan of the American folk scenes, and I appreciate the intense detail thrown in the film that makes the setting so real. Isaac plays a character inspired by Dave Van Ronk, and a lot of those little Ronk details (like the captains license, road trip, etc.) make the character feel more real, because those small details were real. The Gaslight Cafe was real. The manager he road trips to see was real. The manager mentions a folk trio he's assembling, that trio was Peter, Paul, & Mary. The songs they sing in the film were real songs that gained popularity in the area at the time. They even had Dylan appear in the end to top it off. These details portray the setting as realistically as possible while focusing on a mostly fictitious story. Further, what makes it even more real is that while depicting this scene, there isn't a hint of romanticization to be seen. The world is dirty, rotten, and unforgiving. No characters are perfect (in fact, most are horrible), and that is how the real world works. It showed the image of a struggling artist as what it really looks like. No red cherry on top. This blatant depiction if reality is mellow and depressing, but it doesn't dramatize it either like so many other films. As someone else mentioned, it doesn't have an emotional monologue scene or anything like that. It never strays the realistic image. It reminds me of Wim Wenders, or Eric Rhomer, who make films that tend to be very raw and unapologetic. This film lacks a hero's journey, it lacks a fulfilling plot, it lacks likable characters and even character arks. As many of the lower ratings here suggest, it lacks a lot of things that are common in western media (which is why it reminds me of the type of films those aforementioned foreign directors make). If the lack of any of these things bothers you, then maybe it isn't your kind of movie. But if you enjoy non-conventional storytelling, then hop right in. It's one of my favorite films, and it totally gives me the vibes of an Edward Hopper painting.

The execution of this film completely neglects Wim Wenders’s established style, but that is not a bad thing. It only shows that the filmmaker is capable of various forms of storytelling. Yet despite the fact that this film isn’t the best representation of Wenders’s general style, it somehow manages to be the one film everyone points to as his supposed masterpiece, and it’s hard for me to decide whether I agree with that title or not. Unlike his previous films, the setting doesn’t change. There is no long trek on the road, but rather a story that is placed solely in Berlin. Another big change is the use of a script, provided by Peter Handke, whereas most previous films by Wenders’s were mostly unscripted. Yet regardless, we still see hints of Wenders’s style in the themes. The primary character has an existential struggle, per usually, and the film even alludes to Albert Camus in one scene. There is evidence of Edward Hopper’s influence on Wenders in shot compositions, lighting, and subject matter. I enjoy the grounding of Berliner culture in film, by showing focusing on the wall, and even including Nick Cave in the end. The plot is simple, yet slow and poetic. There’s a whole lot of nothing happening throughout a lot of the film, because the film insists upon observing everydayness. If this isn’t your jam, thats fine. One scene I found of particular interest is when the two main characters, Mikkel and Cassiel, sit in a car and report their observations. It reminds me of a scene in Wenders’s previous film Kings of the Road, in which a woman and a man share their encounters with people from the previous day. One thing I found distasteful was the surprise twist with Peter Falk’s character, but overall this film is one of my favorites. I saw one reviewer claim that this film is pretentious and trying too hard to be a “high IQ art film”, but I disagree. The movie is certainly esoteric, but hardly pretentious, and in no way a “high IQ” film. It’s a simple, slow film, meant to be an homage to Berlin upon the filmmakers return from the states. Per Wenders’s usual approach, he’s not trying to be anything. I think he’s simply doing what he wants, and whether or not the audience approves is completely up to the individual audience member.

The Royal Tenenbaums is an interesting mix of humor, tragedy, and melancholy. The mix of genre leaves you unsure of when you’re supposed to laugh, cry, or do both, and instead tends to leave you with an awkward uncertainty. Yet somehow, this isn’t a bad thing. It seems to me that this is the very intention filmmaker Wes Anderson had in mind, as it subsequently becomes the trend of his thematically awkward films. Backed with an excellent soundtrack, the film moves fast and without hesitation, with a quirky execution that can only be described as a “dollhouse” approach. You’re watching a Barbie soap opera for adults. I think Anderson is an excellent example of how adult-oriented films can still be playful and serious at the same time. The turning point of the film is executed amazingly, with Elliott Smith’s “Needle in the Hay” playing in the background. The song is darker in tone than the previous songs throughout the film, and this scene makes every character have to confront the seriousness of their world. The acting is both exaggeration and believable, and I particularly have to point to Luke Wilson, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Gene Hackman for their engaging performances. Wes Anderson has made some excellent films in the years since, and some of them come close to being as good as this one. But still, none of them have hit me the same way.