A review of Wes Anderson's latest film starring Jason Schwartzman, Adrien Brody and Owen Wilson.
Wes Anderson’s latest film, The Darjeeling Limited, depicts his customary blend of humor and heart (although there seems to be a greater abundance of the latter than the former) with all the style and finesse that one would expect out of an Anderson film. While good, however, it doesn’t entirely challenge or deviate from the molds he’s established with his past works, in addition to the fact that I would personally hold some of those films in higher regard, making Darjeeling comparatively weak. It is perhaps unfair, however, to judge the movie strictly by how it relates to others in Anderson’s repertoire, and thus judging it as a separate entity in of itself is a necessity.
The Darjeeling Limited relates the story of three brothers; Francis (Owen Wilson), Peter (Adrian Brody) and Jack (Jason Schwartzman), who, after a year of estrangement following their father’s death, come back together at the request of Francis to embark on a spiritual journey in India and re-establish the bonds that once connected them. Francis has every step of the journey planned methodically and is completely immersed in the idea of once again bonding with his brothers, while the other two remain at least partially preoccupied by their ties to the world beyond Francis’ India. Numerous things go awry, culminating in the realization that personal growth cannot be planned on an itinerary and that spiritual rebirth usually occurs when you don’t expect it.
As you would be able to assume, the film is aesthetically pleasing and stylized in that fashion that is personal and individualistic for Wes Anderson, not to mention that the surroundings themselves are gorgeous without him having a hand in it at all. There’s also really good music, as you might expect (although I found the music choice to be less compelling in this one than it has been in others), and, of course, meticulously placed slow motion sequences. But, of course, what is style with no substance?
The film is primarily about the brothers finding life within one another, within themselves and beyond their father’s death, which is of course appropriate given the setting and India’s staple as a place of spirituality. The path they take toward that enlightenment is not, however, one that Francis has planned for them. In fact, the actual, proper journey begins as they completely depart from Francis’ intended course and into something coincidental and morbid. In the interest of not revealing the entire progress of the plot and the connections and changes that are made within the characters, I will say simply that it is a story of parallels, of a circular structure, and, in relation to that notion, rebirth. It’s not difficult to recognize the bridges between their past and their present, their father and their experiences in India, and the changes that occur within them as a result. And these changes, in of themselves, are not particularly surprising. You could guess at the beginning of the film how everything will work out, and you’d probably be right. But then, some also say that the destination isn’t what matters; it’s how you get there that’s the worthier part.
So how did the worthier part pan out? Well, as I said before, it did have the customary dry humor that Anderson is so well known for, but with less frequency and in less quantity than his previous films. Or perhaps it was the same amount and some of the jokes just fell flat. Either way, I remember laughing much less than I usually do when I watch his work, which really isn’t a bad thing, except that it was marketed as a comedy. Although I enjoyed what humor resonated with me, I think the film itself may have benefited from a lack thereof; the balance between comedy and drama wasn’t as well established as it normally is in his other work, and I felt pulled more toward the more serious aspects than the humorous ones. The time that was focused on the comedy could’ve been better spent by further delving into the individual lives and circumstances of the brothers, particularly Francis, although I did like the minimalist approach Anderson took in portraying their relationships. The simple action of Francis putting an arm around Jack in the car, or Jack laying beside his brother in his somewhat drained emotional state were both touching and effective, and I would have liked to see a bit more of those small, quiet moments that connected them. It was in those instances that I really believed that they were family and felt invested in their relationship.
Brody, Schwartzman and Wilson all performed well (which will hopefully help to trump the silly criticisms that they shouldn’t have comprised the ensemble because they didn’t look like each other) and the cameos of familiar Anderson actors were always a joy. My only real and pertinent criticism, then, is that Anderson should’ve gone full throttle (Charlie’s Angels 2) with the dramatic aspects of the film and allowed the humor to take a back seat to the narrative. The film suffered from a lack of achievement of balance between the two, so to heighten one while lessening the other would have made the movie more effective as a whole. It wasn’t a travesty by any means, I did enjoy it, but it certainly could’ve benefited from perhaps better sight of its intentions and a greater exploration of its characters.
