Why I Hate Wes Anderson
For the past three weeks I’ve immersed myself in the world of an auteur to conquer a personal yet difficult challenge: Watch/re-watch every Wes Anderson film to validate a common phrase I’ve uttered in many film discussions, “I hate Wes Anderson.” For some time I’ve been the black sheep in conversations with peers and friends while they have lauded the director as if he were the 2nd coming. Over the years I have attempted desperately to hop on the Wes Anderson bandwagon, watching his films multiple times yet never being able to finish them as a result of boredom and lack of interest, with exception to Rushmore and Fantastic Mr. Fox. Numerous times I’ve plopped down with a Wes Anderson DVD, sometimes sober most times not, determined to finish at least one film yet never finding enough interest to do so. That is why re-watching five of his seven films has seemed like near torture to me. Initially I had hoped that after immersing myself into Anderson’s world, the result would be an epiphanal appreciation of sorts, but instead I’ve been left with disappointment and further confusion as to why his films are held with such high regard.
“Hate” is a strong word, one that I was willing to take back for the sake of fairness when this task was conceived, however, after watching the 4th of the five films on my agenda, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, a two-hour film that took me roughly four hours to finish, “hate” is the only word that could fully convey my reaction to an Anderson film. Now let me redeem myself first by admitting that I appreciate Anderson as a director. I get why he’s considered a visionary and you can quote me as saying that he is one of the best visual directors in contemporary cinema. His directorial eye is on par with legends like Orson Welles and Dario Argento. Anderson uses the camera in his films to capture stunning images as elaborately as possible through saturated vibrant colors and perfectly angled shots. His films aesthetically drip with the quirky personality and sense of humor he attempts to showcase through his characters. In The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou for instance, characters are created through Anderson’s visual representation of them; Zissou’s boat, The Belafonte, takes on a life of its own as Anderson introduces it in a long shot establishing the massive size of its structure and the numerous rooms within it. Through an impressive long-take and with heavy emphasizes on the bright colorful set design and props, Anderson uses the camera to effortlessly explore each room of the boat establishing the different personalities of the separate rooms.
By showcasing brilliant images filled with striking bold colors that are accentuated by great cinematography and perfect lighting, Anderson proves that he is a phenomenal visionary director, however, it’s his attempt as a writer that causes his films to fail nearly every time. Anderson has a knack for creating intriguing yet oddball characters, such as the precocious 15-year-old Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman) in Rushmore, the missing fingered child prodigy Margot Tenenbaum (Gwyneth Paltrow) in The Royal Tenenbaums, and the washed-up stoner oceanographer, Steve Zissou (Bill Murray). Although his characters hold a sense of intrigue due to their uniqueness and quirks, no true human qualities and complexities are shown and therein lies my major gripe with Anderson. He creates an interesting world of abnormal characters, most of which have been child prodigies, yet he does nothing to develop these people and give the audience a true sense of who and why they are.
While at times there are developments in his film’s narrative, none of his characters receive the same development and their apathetic attitudes toward life makes for uninteresting and unrealistic people to watch on screen. The Royal Tenebaums is a slightly humorous and physically beautiful presentation of a dysfunctional family, yet it’s the main Anderson film that I’ve always found myself praying for its ending half way into it. The characters are all so mellow and lethargic that they don’t demand attention or sympathy and their relationship with one another is only briefly discussed in exposition at the film’s beginning as opposed to being shown through dialogue and emotional moments between characters. By the film’s ending, it’s a bit ridiculous that a family who has been at odds for so many years manage to bond closer than ever in a matter of weeks although no confrontations, resolutions, or apologies have been made.
Anderson’s characters are just that; characters. Everyone is solemn and apathetic, they don’t react with genuine emotion, and they converse as if they take life seriously yet in situations don’t act sincerely. Most, if not all, of his characters are unlikable and express little personality for audiences to relate to. Throughout Anderson’s films, his characters have stated lines like, “I’m going to set out to find the shark that ate my best friend and destroy it,” “I’m going to kill myself tomorrow,” and “I’m gonna pop a cap in his ass;” yet none of these lines are delivered with passion. Instead they’re monotone and listless regardless of the fact that they are meant to be delivered with motivation and conviction. Anderson’s films play out as if someone created a false world where problems only exist as a means of plot devices and coincidences. A “good” film doesn’t do that, instead a good film draws you in and makes you believe the story you’re watching could or has actually happened.
I assumed all was lost in my search for a good Wes Anderson film until I got to The Darjeeling Limited, the 5th and final film. I initially thought, “dear God he finally got it 
right!” The Darjeeling Limited soothed my anger and made me believe that finally Anderson had perfected his niche. An exquisitely bright and colorful film, The Darjeeling Limited is a road trip movie following three very dysfunctional brothers on a train ride to India at the behest of their older brother Francis (Owen Wilson), fresh from a near death experience. Although Francis and his brothers Jack (Jason Schwartzman) and Peter (Adrian Brody) are estranged, the trio attempt to make the best of their trip and reach a transcendental point of spiritual self-discovery, however, their individual neurosis surface and they must deal with each other and their own flaws while accepting those of their family.
For once in Anderson’s career the characters of The Darjeeling Limited seemed real, situations felt natural and genuine despite the overly Technicolor world they live in. The affluent brothers desire to find tranquility in India but their upbringing prompts scenes of overly stereotypical American behavior from them. In one scene the brothers are praying in a temple but Francis notices that Peter is wearing his missing belt causing him to confront his brother about the importance of asking first. Jack immediately after realizes his passport is missing and is convinced that he was pick-pocketed until Francis reveals that he has it, causing another confrontation in the temple. Annoyed by the distractions Peter leaves to pray at another temple, a great assessment of how his character is dealing with the personal turmoil he is revealed to be experiencing. The Darjeeling Limited’s script seemed to allow for great character evolution even though the subject’s situations do not.
Anderson finally seemed to prove himself as a writer—that is until the film’s 60 minute mark. By this point in the film I began to get antsy and although it was intriguing enough to actually hold my attention and keep me entertained, the problem was that the film continued on, resulting in it losing its focus. Characters become inconsistently aloof and remaining portions of the film are simply boring and overly self-indulgent. Situations began to only arise for the sake of capturing a “cool shot,” such as the brothers doing rituals on top of a mountain. The last half of the film fails so hard that the flaws of Anderson began to chip away at any redeeming qualities the film held at its start.
Anderson’s films are merely situations that stock characters find themselves in, a device that is the result of subpar writing. His only successful film as a writer/director has been Fantastic Mr. Fox, as his style and humor translates more effortlessly and effectively in animation. Character’s are developed and make sense for once. It’s in Mr. Fox’s nature to be the way he is: a one-upper show-off filled with arrogance and his actions showcase that, his friends reiterate it, and Mr. Fox himself admits it. All of these elements allow viewers to understand his character thus creating, at the least, empathy when he’s faced with conflict. At the end of the day Mr. Fox is what he is, a fox, and his own personal traits are what lead to the film’s conflict and resolution. However, to say that Fantastic Mr. Fox is the only successful Anderson film brings to mind the correlation that Anderson merely adapted the characters from an existing short story written by Roald Dahl.
I just simply don’t understand the importance of Wes Anderson’s films. Anderson often tells the story of an upper class white family who has no real conflict in their lives except for the ones they create. Anderson constructs characters that viewers are supposed to care for, however, they are never developed enough to encourage true empathy from the audience. Sure they have backgrounds and bad pasts but they never show sincere emotion when confronted with it. They are somber, numb, robotic, and simply characters in a film. Films aren’t watched and regarded so highly because we are watching pawns do a part, a good film and great characters draw you in and makes you believe its reality. If it weren’t for his lavish directorial skills and great ear for perfect soundtracks, I believe that Anderson’s cult following wouldn’t be nearly as large as it currently is.
Tyler Perry has been condemned by critics and his peers for his use of stock characters that are flat and predictable. He has been accused of promoting stereotypes and regurgitating the same unrelatable characters in each of his films. If Perry is to be burned at the stake then shouldn’t Wes Anderson as well? All of his characters are virtually the same, the only thing he trumps Perry over are visuals and atmosphere, however, if stuck in a room with either a Tyler Perry movie or a Wes Anderson film, I’d break both DVDs and slit my wrists to escape the slow torture I would have to endure by watching either.
I totally agree with you. I depise Wes Anderson movies. What summed up his movies and his audience to me was the scene in The Royal Tennenbaums when the guy dressed as Bjorn Borg slashes his wrists. Some idiot in the audience burst out laughing as if it was some hilarious joke. Unbelievable.
“I’d break both DVDs and slit my wrists to escape the slow torture I would have to endure by watching either.” Always end with a bang.
You don’t HAVE TO get why most people really enjoy his movies, especially after trying so hard. AND, first of all… saying that watching ANY movie is near torture is so unbelievably offensive it makes me want to reach through and smack you. Give a little respect for what that word actually MEANS and to the people who have lived it.
I’ve met a lot of people who don’t “Get” Wes Anderson movies, people who think his characters are unrealistic and they dwell on that fact. It’s not your fault. Lots of people haven’t seen enough of the world to be able to relate to the main characters in his films or even believe people like that could exist. Well… they do.
You say that no true human qualities or complexities are expressed by his characters and that is your major gripe with his films. Were we watching the same thing? That statement and several others you make are gross hyperbole. His movies are full of expressiveness and countless moments of pure emotion. His stories about Love and they way he shows its relationship with the characters and how they show their feelings toward one another is extremely HUMAN. Its also very unique, which is why some humans totally miss it. Like yourself.
You also write most of your article while speaking for audiences as a whole, and not yourself. You say “Audiences don’t like blah blah blah” as opposed to “I don’t like blah blah blah”. You shouldn’t write an opinion piece in that manner, suggesting to your reader that most audiences agree with what you are saying. The fact is: They don’t.
You also say that his characters lack a general range of emotion, and yet, in these films they laugh, they cry, they yell, they grieve, they love, they hate…. The fact that you missed all that makes me seriously question your ability to objectively review these kinds of movies which fall into the “think piece” or “caricature” or “slice of life” style.
I agree with you in that his movies lack character development compared to most hollywood scripts. I also agree that he likes to keep the mood somewhat light and dreary with bitter moments slapsticked together with high comedy. His movies are time capsules. They do not fall into the traditional story arc. Some people like yourself simply cannot handle this. Thats fine. These movies aren’t for you. But don’t go writing some puffed up, melodramatic, hyperbole ridden, hate piece because you cant seem to understand it. Cut out all the crap. Don’t fill what could have been a good review and a unique perspective with all that useless drivel.
Oh, and comparing Tyler Perry to Wes Anderson is obscene. Their subject matter and styles of directing are not even in the same universe. Its completely ridiculous.
Happy Hunting!
I just want to say first and foremost, thanks for reading and thanks for the comment! A critic always needs critiquing and I appreciate the words. That being said, you’re right “torture” is a sensitive word to use, however, I stated the task “seemed like near torture” to me. I had hoped that by stating it this way readers would be able to tell that I was clearly exaggerating. I too know many people who “get” his films, having conversations with them about his movies is the reason I even decided to start this task. I know that I don’t “have get his films,” but at the time I wanted to. I love cinema and nearly everyone I know adores Anderson and it’s always outraged me partly because I wasn’t on the bandwagon myself and felt I maybe I was missing something, so I set this task for myself to learn why I didn’t like him despite his acclaim in the film world.
As stated before my initial hope was to get about two movies into his filmography and understand why everyone loved him. I get that there are just some directors and modes of storytelling that I just won’t appreciate because of my life experiences and personal taste. David Lynch is another director who may get a post written about him, but hopefully it won’t become a melodramatic puff piece, that’s the last thing I want any of my work to be. My point of this post was to explain to others why I didn’t feel a connect or share the same glee when I hear Anderson’s name. I’m sure people like his characters exist, in fact I know they do but that doesn’t mean I find his portrayal of these people interesting, relatable or humorous. I haven’t watched a Wes Anderson film since writing this post but off the top of my head I don’t remember any scenes that ever made me think “wow this actor is great” and I equate never saying that with the fact that there are very few scenes in Anderson’s film that promote passion, or in my opinion the portrayal of true human emotions, from his characters.
I started this piece at a time when a Tyler Perry film was being released and I heard all the criticism aimed at him for have one dimensional stereotypical characters, which is the reason his films are hated so strongly among people who haven’t seen enough of the world to know his characters do exist. Because of that constant criticism, I thought to myself “hey Wes Anderson does the same thing, his movies just look better.” Therein was another reason I wanted to do this piece. Yes I think Anderson is tenfold better than Perry as a director, but to me Perry’s knack for dramatics trump Anderson’s “caricature” style any day. I only compare the two because I feel they are both “slice of life” writers that makes films for niche audiences that are hard to grasp by what’s considered the masses. I didn’t and still don’t think it’s fair to lampoon Perry when Anderson is doing virtually the same thing only prettier.
I am not a particular fan of Anderson and dislike his movies primarily because I find them to be dull although I do think Rushmore was reasonably entertaining. I could write a longer thought piece on the merits of each picture but feel that perhaps for me “dull” best sums things up. Slow pacing, lack of characterization, comedy moments that lack any real humour (dark or otherwise) all contribute. I could go on. I mostly felt the need to post to disagree with The Man and his suggestion that some people simply “don’t get” Anderson or that some people are incapable of handling Anderson’s “time capsule” style. I have always been deeply infuriated by the suggestion that those who dislike a movie genre, director, piece of art (modern or otherwise) etc are somehow incapable of “getting” it. The inference of course is that they therefore lack the intellectual capacity to understand and appreciate whatever it might be. Of course it is never stated so directly but just hidden under the auspices of “get”. For me the idea of “get” smacks a bit of the emperor’s new clothes. The last bastion of the critically acclaimed and popularly ignored. I have no problem with those who love or loathe Anderson movies or people presenting their argument but I do wish the fan boys and girls would avoid defending him or anyone else with “get”. Make a better argument as to the merits of his output if you wish and maybe you will help bring about a wider epiphany that the original author was seeking. I am sure most movie aficionados “get” Anderson. What we take away from most of his output and the enjoyment we experience is what clearly differs. I would not be so presumptuous to explain the myriad of reasons why that might be but I am pretty sure it has very little to do with “get”.
You cannot truly love something without first understanding it.
You are latching onto my use of the phrase “getting it”. It is not that I think people lack the intellectual capacity to understand and appreciate his films. From my experience it is much more personal and spiritual than that. People that I have spoken to who really enjoy his films tend to exhibit a glowing emotional response to something in the film. His unique style of storytelling does not reach everyone that way.
Take “The Life Aquatic” for instance. It is a very unconventional, slow paced, unique film where not much actually happens. By Hollywood standards it falls short. But to a lot of people there are moments in the film that spark in their heart much stronger than in a typical blockbuster. The Seu Jorge song progressions, the light beachy sea air atmostphere, personal conflicts, love, loss, the slow wavy motion of life moving forward and changing while not really changing at all. His movies put you in a different sort of mindset with their relaxed simplicity and set you up to feel something deeper.
His unique settings tend to leave out all the flash and awe, but I think its to draw you in closer, making you want to get something out of it and not waste your time. It makes you seek to try and find something fantastic inside. You lean forward. Then when you are committed, on the edge of interest and boredom, it hits you. That special scene. You were more open to it and the feeling came on strong. Its memorable. And it doesn’t happen that way for everyone.
A scene comes along and you think “That was me once” or you somehow relate to it. Anderson’s setting somehow allows that feeling to reach deeper into you; to affect you. The people who love his movies all have such a reaction at some point and share that affinity with it. That is what great storytelling is. So when I say that some people just dont get Wes Anderson movies, it has nothing to do with being smart enough to understand. It has only to do with whether they can relate to them on a personal level. Most people tend to. Some people cant. Thats fine. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
For me, in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, there were several very special moments. When she reads to her baby and Ned visits, When Ned asks for the third time if Steve knew about him and why he never came to see him and Steve replies “Because I hate fathers and I never wanted to be one.” When Steve and Eleanor have their heart to heart.
Stories that have you elicit a very powerful emotion… are what this glorious art is all about.
I’m trying to figure why I don’t “get” Wes Anderson movies. I just experienced a theater full of people laughing and crying to Moonrise Kingdom – and I have no idea why. It was a very dissociative experience.
The Man’s second post here is the closest thing I’ve found to an explanation.
“You cannot truly love something without first understanding it”
Maybe. Maybe not. But just because you understand something doesn’t mean you will love it. I understand turnips. I just don’t like ‘em. I understand tabloid journalism, croquet and racism. But I think they are shallow, boring and offensive (in that order). This strident over opinionated under analytical post confirms that you intend the word “get” to imply a lack of understanding, and thereby a lack of intelligence. My four year old just loves to watch Barney the purple dinosaur. I’m happy for him, but personally it leaves me cold. Maybe I’m just not intelligent enough to get it. The same way I don’t “get” Moonrise Kingdom.
Thanks Pure Original for your input, glad to know I’m not alone but also that you The Man for returning to clarify your point. What you said the second time around makes a lot more sense and is less hostile. I like the point you bring up and in that sense, I can see why people “get” his movies. Honestly I just love that people are having a conversation about this and making great points!
Loved this post! I completely agree and also glad to find I am not alone.
The only thing worse than a Wes Anderson movie are the fans trying to convince you that it is actually great. Wes Anderson is the indie douche rocker of film. His fans are even more annoying. I guess I just haven’t seen enough of the world . . . Zzzzzzz! What a complete DBag.
Wow, “TheMan” is a complete and utter fanboy. Haven’t seen enough of the world to relate to Anderson’s boring,unrealistic characters? That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I’ve ever read alongside being entirely false. His characters are so unrealistic that the more real world experience you have, the less relatable his characters are. There is also nothing wrong with calling a movie torture.
Please stop conveying your opinion into words. You’re getting stupid all over everything.
I agree with everything you say in your post. However, I kind of like Anderson (in a very lukewarm sense). Although, I haven’t seen all of his films and have only seen two. I can understand why people like his movies. He does quirk very well, and as you say, his movies are visually stunning.
I do agree that he is overrated, which I believe, is partially due to his audience, most of whom are hipsters that the mainstream have seen to validate because they tend to be very young.and, therefore, viable.
As to Tyler Perry, I believe one of the major reasons he is critically lambasted is precisely because his movies are NOT geared toward hipsters, and instead geared toward African-American populists.
There has always been, and always will be, opposing views between populists and hipsters. Both camps need to realize the other is here to stay, as long as both have income to be disposed of.
I find fault with those that find his characters not being realistic? Who said characters have to be realistic to enjoy them? Life aquatic is a fantasy. It rarely tries to be otherwise. Have u actually seen the movie? If you find the movie then apparently you are a lover of Michael bay and the complete shit he makes. Want to talk unrealistic with no character development? Try half the movies that make a hundred million that come out in the summer. And the fact that u even mention Tyler perry in the same article as Anderson proves to me that u are going to cinema hell to watch the collected works of uwe boll for all eternity. Oh wait, you probably like those movies don’t you? Not to boring for you I expect? What are your favorite movies cenopheliac? What IS to your taste? And do you know what character development even is? If you don’t see it in andersons films then you have no idea.
Jess, since you asked questions about my movie taste and have placed judgement on what type of films I like, despite being on a site that’s devoted to me discussing films I love and dislike, I’m going to assume you merely skimmed over my post and didn’t really understand the concepts of realism and character development. A character doesn’t have to be real to the world we know to be realistic, a character gains realism because of how they are written or how the actor portrays them.
If you want a better understanding of why I don’t like Anderson’s film (except Moonrise Kingdom and Fantastic Mr. Fox) might I suggest actually reading the post along with my Moonrise Kingdom and Fantastic Mr. Fox reviews. If you still can’t grasp my reasoning then I’m sorry but am not sure how else to explain it.
Also I don’t mind Michael Bay films, I’ve only seen about 2 or 3 but I think that man is a phenomenal action director.
my dear movie fans, the whole point of Wes Anderson’s films is that they are not to be enjoyed as cinematic master pieces for people who spend their lives living vicariously through film, but as causal references to metaphoric life as experienced by those who spend their lives diving for hidden treasures in their blow up swimming pool, racing against wild horses on the indoor bicycle track and playing with play mobil pirates in the bath. These movies are not references to life to be appreciated for their cinematic brilliance and ability to portray real people and real emotions, they are to be films to be appreciated in that brief moment at the end of a busy weekend of high adventure in the backyard when you are so exhausted from playing that you must collapse on the couch and in a desperate attempt not to fall asleep when your body is sunburnt and exhausted from too much fun, watch something to bring back memories of the days and nights gone by or gather inspiration for the days to come.
What a beautiful way of expressing that, thank you for sharing!
All I can say is Wes Anderson films are not for me, people have different tastes, I think his films are alot like the original Ricky Gervais office, its a bit like watching a documentary about slightly quirky people where nothing much actually happens,
However well observed his world may be, its ultimately little more than a empty experience if the style or characters don’t touch you, I always feel that if within 5 minutes of a Wes Anderson movie your thinking I don’t like this style of movie or the Characters just seem dull and staid then you may as well switch off as it aint going to change much in the remaining hour and a half.
Its a bit like that for me, his films feel like a one trick pony, characters from any of his movies wouldn’t feel out of place if they popped up in a different title, the pacing feels very similar, loose plot lines that don’t develop much, thats the major issue, people either love it or hate it, and as its a style he repeats, your left feeling the same after every movie. Your almost forced to hold onto the same judgements you felt from the first Wes Anderson movie you saw, for people to say you havent watched enough to get it is wrong, I think if you have seen one of his movies and loved it, watch the others as your likely to love them too, however if you say any of his past work, say you saw the life aquatic and hated it, just found it dull and full of 2 dimensional characters, then I’d say you’ll probably feel the same about every other film of his you’ll see.
I myself love some quirky comedy, I loved ‘being john malkovich’, some of my favourite films are very obscure like Guy Maddens, “The saddest music in the world”, or doc style comedy like “man bites dog” or , but Anderson movies just leave me cold, its wierd, I like simular style pieces but by other directors like Napolean Dynamite, but hated sitting through any Wes Anderson movie I’ve seen. Wierdly enough I also didn’t enjoy the Office, everyone I knew loved it, but for me it was just didn’t hit funny or touching
When I started watching “Moonrise Kingdom,” after seeing its good reviews, I saw Anderson’s name and thought, “Uh oh.” I gave it a shot, but had to turn in off after about half an hour. I haven’t been able to get through a single one of his films, and I have stopped probably less than ten films in my 4+ decades of life, most of them his. “Tennenbaums” was especially painful. I lasted maybe thirty minutes on that one too. After turning it off, I looked the guy up, and I found that everything he has done I have hated. Yes, hate is a strong word, but I truly hate his work. I have no idea why he is held in such high regard. The characters are boring. The story is boring. The cinematography is insufferable. He is the only artist (being very generous calling him that) of any kind where I will make sure his name is not on it before getting involved. I just learned my lesson with finality with “MK.” Great artists grow, expand, and do new things. He continues to do exactly the same thing over and over. He is yet another example of lack of talent being mistaken for genius.
Kind of funny that you refer to Anderson as a “visionary mastermind” in your Tiny Furniture/Girls review.
visionary mastermind
How so?
well, if i felt that i had to “slit my wrists to escape the slow torture” of any director i don’t think that i would refer to them as a visionary mastermind
You raise a very valid point, however I’ve always admitted to loving Anderson’s visual eye. I think his visuals are stunning but it’s his story telling and execution of films that I hate.I’ll be more mindful of that in the future though!
Oh wow. I completely and totally agree with you. Spot on. Why don’t others see it? Makes me feel like I’m weird…
Thanks for the comment and no you’re definitely not weird although I felt the same way for the longest. It’s just a case of different strokes different folks, glad you’re on my side though
Wes Anderson is awful. No one has the guts to take a stand and be the person who says “all of you are wrong and this guy sucks.”
His films are not even films. They’re cardboard cut outs. He doesn’t make movies.
Moonrise Kingdom is the same film he always makes. Boring,bland etc I know where the jokes fall but they are awful.
ah … the dreaded Wes Anderson!!! Hearing his name makes my heart sink!!! His movies are so dull. I like oddball, quirky movies but Anderson movies always seem to miss something . . . that little something that makes a film like Napolean Dynamite so warm and likeable! maybe one day he’ll make a movie il like ….. but the thought of having to sit through another half dozen of his pictures to find a diamond in the rough makes my boz itch!!! (and im not talking about a pleasant tingle)!