Hooray for weekends and their abundance of free time (for once). Spent the weekend watching movies and came across two disparate films. Vincent Ward's 1998 Academy Award winning film
What Dreams May Come was a visual delight and an ideology suck up, whereas Wes Anderson's "simple, yet elegant" 2001 feature
The Royal Tenenbaums falls more into a category E film, leaving the audience with an ambiguous feeling.
What Dreams May Come is a story about family values and the afterworld. One family is broken by death, first that of the children, then that of the father, and it's up to the father to figure out how to get them back together in heaven. Heaven is uniquely crafted as the most beautiful thing we admire on earth, manifested for us in Heaven. Since Robin Williams' character Chris Nielsen was an admirer of art (specifically paintings) his heaven is a world made of paint. The film won its Oscar for best visual effects, and it makes sense why. Cuba Gooding Jr. was nominated for an Oscar in his role as Nielsen's spirit guide.
Not surprisingly, though, the film plays heavily into the dominant ideology: a whole family (One father, mother, daughter and son unit) is the goal, the father is the person who needs to bring the family together, there is a heaven and we can all get to it, all the money in the world didn't buy Nielsen and his wife happiness after they lost their children. At the end of the movie, the ideology is nearly ruined when Chris suggests that he be reborn, but resolves that issue by saying he can make it back to heaven and everything will be the same... (sorry for the elusiveness there, I'm trying not to spoil it for you).
On the other hand,
The Royal Tenenbaums appears to be a movie about family, and how it's broken, but also how death can bring the family together. Royal Tenenbaum, the father of the misfit, broken family, wants what he can't have, and currently his wife is about to marry another man, and thus he wants her to be his again. Pretending that he's dying, Royal makes his way into his wife's life, and she calls her children who have spread far and wide, each having their own life problems, and they gather around dad as he dies... But he's not dying, and when the word gets out, things go a little haywire for him and everyone involved. It's up to good ol' family values to bring them all together.
True to the style of Wes Anderson's Oeuvre, the film puts a lot of emphasis on moving shots, whip pans, and odd color pallet. Well-chosen music plays throughout the film, asking the audience to consider not only the visuals, the story, the rhythm, or the lyrics, but also the production of the songs. Although Michale Kamen (who scored
What Dreams May Come) has created beatiful music that works for Ward's film, Anderson's music seems more appropriate, and less of an extra than a complement.
The two films tend to share similar themes, but the box office reports that maybe
Dreams is a bit too sappy, and something more lighthearted is necessary to portray the family of today.
What Dreams May Come had a budget of 85 million dollars and earned a measly 55 million, whereas
The Royal Tenenbaums only cost $21 million and made $52 million. Take your pick.
What Dreams May Come is a story about family values and the afterworld. One family is broken by death, first that of the children, then that of the father, and it's up to the father to figure out how to get them back together in heaven. Heaven is uniquely crafted as the most beautiful thing we admire on earth, manifested for us in Heaven. Since Robin Williams' character Chris Nielsen was an admirer of art (specifically paintings) his heaven is a world made of paint. The film won its Oscar for best visual effects, and it makes sense why. Cuba Gooding Jr. was nominated for an Oscar in his role as Nielsen's spirit guide.
The first time I saw “What Dreams May Come”, the stunning depictions of heaven and hell were unlike anything I’d ever seen, and for a long time I listed it among my favorites. Not only was the concept of heaven as a vibrant, expansive landscape lush with color, sound, and movement perhaps the only image of heaven which has ever appealed to me, but the idea that one man’s heaven was to live inside his wife’s paintings lent that emotional meaning as well. And in the same way heaven was magnificent, hell was unnerving; contrary to the stereotypical demon-infested fire and brimstone one comes to expect, the strange and startling images in the film realized a very strong feeling of loneliness and despair. Then there was the plot. The setting was based loosely on Dante’s “Divine Comedy”, but the soulmate storyline was unique to the film. Although the soulmate theme was, in my opinion, overemphasized, no one can deny the deeply romantic notion of a man willing to forsake heaven and fight his way to the depths of hell to retrieve the woman he loves. Robin Williams, an actor who typically moves me during his serious roles, was very appropriate and affective. And while I consider myself by no means a hopeless romantic in the traditional sense, the desperation and unwavering persistence of Williams’ performance struck a few chords.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I still revere the film for its dazzling visual acumen and continue to connect with Williams as the main character, repeated viewings have removed the rose-colored glasses and the film’s flaws have become blaringly conspicuous to me. I do not wish to taint your positive review with negativity, nor do I wish to imply that I disagree with you, so I will not go into great detail. I think it may be the hardened skeptic in me that finds the plot and dialogue a bit hard to swallow, however this distaste is likely a product of my own perception; I do want to emphasize that the story, content, and tone of the story is purposefully intended to be very passionate and emotionally charged. After all, a film with such striking visuals would fall flat if paired with subdued content or subtle emotions. One contention that I will make known (since you mentioned it), is the casting of Cuba Gooding, Jr. and his subsequent nomination. Although he thrives in roles like his in “Jerry Maguire”, I find his characteristically sappy and theatrical “serious” performances unbearable. But that’s just me.
All of that being said, I am surprised that you haven’t seen this before. Had I known, I would have recommended/lent it to you because I thought you would be attracted to the film for similar reasons that I was (speculations I find confirmed by your review). I also found “The Fountain” to be very similar; it possesses the same remarkable visual qualities as well as the strongly passionate motif that love transcends mortality. Would you consider them comparable, and if so, which did you find more effective?