Review of the Reviews

WARNING: THIS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE   

   A movie I consider to be greatly under-appreciated, yet wonderfully heartwarming, is Wes Anderson's The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. It came in the wake of Rushmore, Bottle Rocket, and The Royal Tenenbaums, all great accomplishments in Anderson's career, yet for some reason this one wasn't as popular as the others. For those of you who don't know, this movie is about a washed-up oceanographer, played by Bill Murray, who hasn't made a hit documentary in years. He decides to take on a quest to track down the supposed jaguar shark that killed his friend, Esteban, and film the entire thing. He is joined by his ex-wife (Anjelica Huston), his probable son, Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), a pregnant journalist writing a piece on Zissou (Cate Blanchett), and a host of other odd characters.

  To further examine popular opinion on the film itself, I have chosen 2 reviews, one positive and one negative.  Hopefully they will provide some insight to the film.

  The first review I found is a negative review written by Mike Clark from USA TODAY, link here.  His opinion is that the movie is all over the place, getting dragged down by dysfunctional family dynamics that aren't funny enough to keep one's interest.  That seems to be Clark's main point, that The Life Aquatic tries to be humorous and interesting and falls short.  He states, "It has an almost slapstick pirate attack, a belated attempt at poignancy that just doesn't come off..."  Clearly he finds the movie disappointing in ways.  I agree that much of the film is attempting to be funny, but I find the dry wit  to be rather appealing.  Yet Clark keeps going back to this family idea, going through each person on the crew and building together what is considered the Zissou family.  He sees Anjelica Huston's as a "purse-string-pulling wife," which is fairly accurate considering she is the money for their operations.  William Dafoe's character, Klaus, while being sort of teddy-bear-esque, is described by Clark as in "...he keeps getting his feelings hurt."  It is clear, from his writing, that he disapproves of the characters and their dynamics, which seems to be a large part of his thesis. Interestingly enough, Clark compares this film to another of Murray's films, Lost In Translation, and even Napoleon Dynamite.  He believes that Murray's "funny deadpanned zingers" were better Lost In Translation than in this one, even though any zinger that Murray delivers is thoroughly enjoyable.  And I can understand the allusion to Napoleon Dynamite, since both films have an off-kilter feel.  Overall, I say his opinion is perfectly valid and well-supported, as much of what he says is true.  This movie is definitely based on personal opinion, and whether or not you agree with Anderson's style.

   The other review I found, the positive review, comes from Roger Ebert on his own website, link here.  His opinion seems to be that this movie, while outwardly should not mesh as well as it does, has a sort of eerie beauty about it.  He seems to appreciate the visuals of the movie, the pastel color scheme and the cutaway side view of the boat they all live on.  It is a very visually interesting movie, inventing brightly colored sea creatures that make it seem like a crayon box has exploded.  He believes Murray's character to be "melancholy, as if simultaneously depressed that life is passing him by, and that it's taking so long to do it."  He describes Huston's character to be "privately amused, which is so much more intriguing than seeming publicly amused."  Ebert is very complimentary of the actors and the characters,  apparently amused by the hodgepodge of wanderers aboard Steve Zissou's ship.  Ebert even begins his review by saying, "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou is the damnedest film.  I can't recommend it, but I would not for one second discourage you from seeing it."  This seems to be his thesis, exploring how odd and dysfunctional this movie is, yet how it manages to seem oddly and dysfunction-ally beautiful anyways.

   Between both articles, I found a two quotes I really agree with.  In the first, by Clark, I agree with his statement that, "It's hard to get a bead on just what kind of guy Zissou is."  That is very true.  The character strikes this odd balance between being incredibly kind and sweet to his supposed son Ned, and stealing his competitor's coffee machine.  Zissou seems not only lost with his audience, but lost with himself, which seems to be why his character is such an enigma.  I personally appreciate the mystery, since it adds a sort of self-journey feel to the film and makes Zissou's catharsis at the end all that more important.  In the other article written by Ebert, I very much agree with the idea that, "The colors are like the pastels produced by colored pencils, and kind of beautiful, like the shark."  Part of the reason I love this movie so much is the visuals.  The film is very dry and witty, yet the colors are bright and garish, providing a stark contrast to some of the more serious themes.  In the end, when we see the shark in all its glory, I always feel so uplifted, because the shark itself is beautiful and creative, and something wonderful has been achieved by the characters.  There is beauty in much of the movie, and that's one of the reasons I really appreciate it.

  If I were to approach these reviews as if I had never seen this film, I would be hesitant to watch it based on Clark's insistence that the humor falls short and the movie is wildly unorganized, but I think I'd buy in to Ebert's optimistic view of a beautiful chaos the movie represents.  Ebert constantly builds up the film's possible flaws, like the slapstick humor and Murray's "zingers."  He makes the film sound charming, and I think I wouldn't give up the opportunity to watch a movie with those characteristics.

   If I were to review this film, I'd have many positive things to say.  The relationship between Ned and Steve, while being rocky at times and seeming more like Ned putting up with Steve than Steve being a father to Ned, is heartwarming at its resolution and culmination at the end of the film.  The music, which I want to give a shout out to, is David Bowie sung in Portuguese by a folk artist, which provides a gorgeous backdrop to the film.  All characters are charming in their own right, and I appreciate their uniqueness and contribution to the film's overall themes.  I find Murray's "zingers" to be outstanding and hilarious, as I love his humor in any film.  He is the perfect person to play a washed up oceanographer searching for a shark that may or may not actually exist.  Of course, I'd leave out things too.  I probably wouldn't mention the boat getting taken over by pirates, which, although it added greatly to the film, still seems rather violent and harsh to me.  I also would not mention the love triangle between Ned, Steve, and the journalist, because while it does take up time in the film, I think the idea of love triangles can put people off and it's not so important to the plot that it becomes an obnoxious love story.  All in all, I have very little negative things to say about this movie, even though I value and accept the opinions of those who do.