I just came back from seeing Asteroid City and it really has me at a loss. I’ve only seen The Grand Budapest hotel of his other movies but know of the inherent weirdness of his movies. I usually know how to classify and discuss a movie after I’ve seen it but this one left me kind of speechless. Not in the sense that I thought it’s the most amazing movie I’ve ever seen but rather that I really don’t know what to make of it.
Was it weird? Yes. Was it uncanny? Yes. Was it beautiful to look at? Yes. Did I understand it? No. Was there anything to understand? I’m not sure. I felt like it tried to lead me somewhere the whole runtime, but I didn’t get to any conclusion at the end.
I’m sure there’s someone here with a bit more context to his filmography that could shine a little light onto the movie, or lead me in the right direction.
On another note, feel free to discuss what you thought of it here, I’d love to read your thoughts!
You must log in or register to comment.
There are two stories being told at the same time. One is the story of a 1950s stage production called “Asteroid City” and the other is an actual presentation of the stage play “Asteroid City”.
It flips back and forth between the behind the scenes stage production and the actual play itself.
It’s stilted and awkward because that was the style of many plays in that era. If you look at playwrites like Harold Pinter or Samuel Beckett, you’ll get the same vibe.
Here are films of two of Beckett’s better known productions, this is the sort of vibe Anderson was going for. It was called “theater of the absurd”:
No, it doesn’t make much sense. Why is that woman buried in dirt up to her waist in the first act and up to her neck in the second? You aren’t supposed to ask those kinds of questions with these productions.
That’s going to bother a lot of people.
Thank you, this is the kind of context I was looking for!
I’m not sure how much there is too explain beyond what you saw. But maybe that you’ve only seen one other Anderson film makes you think there’s more to it when rather it is what it is.
I personally was disappointed, the Wes Anderson style was driven so hard it took away from the movie and waaaay to many characters. All these amazing actors and they had so little screen time they were barely utilised. Tom hanks and Steve Carrel had barely 10mins of screentime. What a waste!
Less actors would have led to a much more concise and engaging story, like Grand Budapest, Moonrise Kingdom and Darjeeling Ltd IMO. I’d be interested to hear what other people thought of it.
Darjeeling didn’t exactly give Tom Hanks much screen time either! “Here’s the central character … and he’s gone!”
Yes, maybe I was looking for more than there is to it. For me, it felt very pathos-y and as if it wanted to convey a deeper message, but when I found none at the end, maybe that’s exactly what Anderson was going for here. Or is going for in many of his movies. I think I’ll see another one of his to try and make this clearer to me.
And I agree on there being a lot of characters! It’s a great cast that shows up surprisingly little, so to say. :D
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but after watching The French Dispatch, it really makes me miss the old Wes Anderson. Movies like Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Life Aquatic were much simpler and yet still felt very human but worked with Anderson’s unique style. I still appreciate his approach but wish he would just cut back a little more on the meta stuff.
Haven’t seen it yet so this will be less helpful than you’d hoped for, but!
His movies have a lot of imagery just to have the visuals on the screen. Like stuff he thought, “I want to see this on the silver screen” or hear so and so say “this line” even if it doesn’t particularly fit the movie.
Can you give an example of what you mean?
My take after a single watch is
spoiler
I think it’s possible the entire construct of what was happening in black and white was not really happening at all, but just an invention of Jason Schwartzmann’s character to help him deal with the grief of losing his wife.
Conversely, I think everything that happened in color was really happening.
Interestingly this is a wild inversion of what’s presented on screen (where we’re supposed to believe that what’s happening in color is all a production being put on by actors and is NOT real, while the black and white stuff is what’s real.
I’ve only seen it once, but I suspect there are really subtle hints to this peppered throughout.
I believe the climax of the movie is when Jason Schwartzmann’s character “walks through the set” and ends up encountering his wife / “the actress who was supposed to play his wife”. That it began snowing afterwards is a strong visual Cue.
This is literally just my take. I haven’t bothered reading any analysis. I probably won’t until I see it a few more times.
Hope that helps
Thank you for your perspective! Now that I think about it, your theory doesn’t seem that far out there.
Wes Anderson has a really distinct style, I felt like the whole movie was just meta about that. There have been quite a lot parodies made about his style so maybe he wanted to expand that.
I really liked the movie but it was definitely one of my least favorite Wes Anderson movies.I’ve found his movies to mean different thing to each viewer. Sometimes I find a new meaning in the stories each time I watch. I haven’t seen this one yet but I’ve seen all of the others. Personally I’ve liked fantastic mr fox the best. So many different feels.
I think it defeats the purpose of his storytelling to have someone write it out for you.
I really liked Richard Brody’s take on the film https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/in-wes-andersons-asteroid-city-the-artist-is-present
I think you have see a little bit more of Anderson to grasp some of the common themes with him. Overall, is not that complicated: just a story within a story, going meta on a very Wes Anderson way.
