If you aren’t familiar with Wes Anderson, he has directed four feature films – Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou – that focus on quirky characters, in unusual situations, generally working through family dysfunction while engaging in often comedic, yet stilted, dialogue. In varying degrees (Tenenbaums and Bottle Rocket more than Rushmore and Zissou), I’ve enjoyed each of his movies. In particular, I’ve always found them to be visually appealing; the backgrounds of his scenes are often filled with interesting, sometimes strange, set pieces that seemingly don’t fit but ultimately reveal something about the characters’ personalities.
Last night, I watched his latest movie, The Darjeeling Limited. It’s the story of three brothers, estranged since their father’s death approximately a year before the beginning of the movie, who together take a train journey across India on what the eldest brother, Francis (portrayed by Owen Wilson), deems a spiritual quest. It turns out that Francis’ true intent, which he keeps hidden from his two younger siblings, Jack (Jason Schwartzman) and Peter (Adrien Brody), until it’s basically too late for them to reject the idea, is a reunion with their mother (Anjelica Huston) who is holed up in a convent in the Himalayas. If you haven’t watched any of Anderson’s movies, are you starting to understand what I mean about quirky characters in unusual situations? Regardless, I recommend the film.
But the reason I’m writing this post is that I’m wondering if anyone else has seen the movie, particularly the short film titled Hotel Chevalier that precedes Darjeeling on the DVD and is subtitled Part 1 of the feature. Chevalier stars Schwartzman as Jack and Natalie Portman as Jack’s girlfriend who seemingly toys with Jack’s emotions. It’s a fascinating, albeit brief, exploration of controlling individuals and the tortuous essence of some human relationships. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
However, in one scene, Anderson’s lens pans across the hotel suite in which Chevalier is set. In keeping with Anderson’s visual style, the shot features a quirky “background” set piece. But, this time, the set piece is a completely nude Natalie Portman. In the scene, she is uncomfortably lying/bent over a chair, in an almost entirely non-sexual way (she is Natalie Portman, she can’t be completely non-sexual). Initially, I found Anderson’s use of Portman, precisely because she is essentially reduced to a set piece, unsettling and exploitative.
Anyway, since I watched it, I’ve been considering my initial reaction. On one hand, given that it fits with both Anderson’s style and the short film’s theme, I think his use of her body as a prop is appropriate and maybe my reaction was expected as a sort of turning of the tables of control. On the other, though, I still don’t like his degradation of Portman’s body (Because actors work willingly, I generally find that attitude quaint – which sort of explains why I can’t fully work this out in my own mind). Regardless, it certainly made me think, and I consider that to be a good thing.