1025 The Grand Budapest Hotel

[FrauBlucher]

Village Voice... contains some spoilers so you may want to skim the article.

[Mathew]

Does anyone know if this will be shown in theatres in FLAT with pillarboxing for 1.33 and letterboxing for 2.35 OR if it will be shown in SCOPE with pillarboxing for 1.33 & 1.85?

OR... Will it be shown ala Avatar in either SCOPE or FLAT depending on the best screen size available? (I know upon the re-release of Avatar the theater could choose to show the SCOPE version if the screen was native 2.35 or the FLAT version if the screen was native 1.85.) It would be cool if Fox Searchlight offered the same option to theaters.

[Finch]

Slant interviews Wes Anderson

[Black Hat]

This was a bit of a departure for Anderson as it didn't aspire to charm like much of his other work. In fact it was, by his standards, at times downright edgy. I hope this change of mood doesn't accrue a backlash among the 'only happy if an artist keeps doing the same thing over and over again' crowd every fanbase as intense as Anderson's has.

The film's a marvelously executed, Fiennes & Revolori were great, buddy comedy caper. Some may critique the film for having all these names in the cast who essentially do nothing, but for me having all these wonderful actors is a very sweet nod to his fans, who at this point expect to see Murray, Scwartzman or Owen Wilson to appear, but also no doubt a testament to the love shared between Anderson and his collaborators. To approach this cynically is to completely miss the point of creativity to the point of shallow disrespect. As much as I did enjoy it I think The Grand Budapest Hotel will ultimately be looked at as a transitional work that introduced an uneasy tension to his world of exquisitely designed charms. I eagerly anticipate where he goes next.

One note of warning to the New York contingent: the Lincoln Square theater completely messed up the projection and the frame was stretched out, cutting for example the film's few subtitles, shots of newspapers and of course who knows what was missing on the sides of the frame. I did bring it to the attention of the kid working there who gave me a voucher but to say he couldn't give a fuck about telling the projectionist to fix it would be an understatement. What a disgrace.

[FrauBlucher]

Thanks Black Hat for your overview. I had every intention of seeing it this afternoon, but I needed to see Nostalghia at the Film Forum before it left. I will go Monday afternoon and try my hand at the Union Square Mega Schmegma plex. Hopefully with any luck the projection will be spot on so I won't have to deal with the who-gives-a-shit employees who wouldn't know the difference between Wes Anderson and Harriet Andersson.

[Jeff]

Does anyone know if this will be shown in theatres in FLAT with pillarboxing for 1.33 and letterboxing for 2.35...

This. The DCP is framed at 1.85 with pillarboxing and letterboxing for the 1.37 and 2.35 ratios, respectively.

[captveg]

Wes Anderson infuses this ribald comedy of fortune inheritance with his style dialed to 11, but underneath it all is - like Renoir's Grand Illusion - an astute look at the passing of the cosmopolitan aristocrat into history. All that, and the ski chase sequence is a delight in comedic action. 9/10

[hearthesilence]

I posted this elsewhere but FWIW, I saw Moonrise Kingdom twice in the theaters. First time at the Regal near Union Square, where they did indeed crop out part of the frame, cutting into the titles printed near the bottom, and the second time at BAM Rose Cinema, where the framing was perfect. The Grand Budapest Hotel opens next week in Brooklyn...

[Jeff]

Looks like it's going to be another successful one. It just set the record for per-screen average for a live-action film.

[Black Hat]

Does anyone know if this will be shown in theatres in FLAT with pillarboxing for 1.33 and letterboxing for 2.35...

This. The DCP is framed at 1.85 with pillarboxing and letterboxing for the 1.37 and 2.35 ratios, respectively.

Are the different aspect ratios possibly why I had the experience I did?

[hearthesilence]

That was my guess, yes.

[captveg]

Yeah, the film starts and ends with bookends in a completely pillarboxed 1.85 AR, so my guess is that someone decided to zoom in for your screening to have the height match the screen for this ratio, which would result in the 1.37 AR scenes to play cropped on top and bottom.

[FrauBlucher]

Monday, I went to see this wonderfully entertaining, clever and visually beautiful film. There was no letdown, it's as good as I expected it to be. You can feel Wes Anderson's appreciation and love for the art and history of film. There are so many little nods to some of the masters of yore. For me, it's Anderson's most mature film, which probably has to do with the subject matter. But it also has an edginess which is something Anderson doesn't display often in his films. This moves to the top of my "best of Anderson" list.

[Jeff]

instructions to the projectionist

[Gregory]

That'll be good documentation for fifty years from now when people have heated arguments about the aspect ratio of the film.

[mfunk9786]

Does anyone know if this will be shown in theatres in FLAT with pillarboxing for 1.33 and letterboxing for 2.35...

This. The DCP is framed at 1.85 with pillarboxing and letterboxing for the 1.37 and 2.35 ratios, respectively.

I was curious while watching the film why the decision was made to both pillarbox and letterbox the 1.85, making it look rather terrible on a cinema screen, rather than allowing those bookend portions of the film to fill the frame entirely. However, I was lucky enough to see this framed perfectly projection-wise (at the Ritz Five in Philadelphia, where all five screens are showing this film all day, every day - and our matinee was packed!) and found it to be Wes Anderson's finest technical feat in a career full of delightful showmanship, though perhaps about ten minutes too short. Much like Moonrise Kingdom, I occasionally felt as if I'd love to be able to take a breath and relax, but the story and the narration are all about moving us along, like children who're being rushed around a shopping mall by parents who've got other places to be (for all the flack that Anderson once got about his use of slow-motion, I would have loved some of it in these last two films!). However, also like Moonrise Kingdom, that's probably the only complaint I have, which means that this is another triumph, another film staggering in its detail, confidence, and ubiquitous oddity among a landscape of other current filmmakers who aren't even coming close to doing this peculiar kind of work.

[domino harvey]

Unless I misunderstand you, there's slow motion in Moonrise Kingdom-- when Suzy and Sam and the wedding party exit the marriage ceremony

[mfunk9786]

Good call. There's a breakneck pace that both films share, and I hadn't remembered that, which has now got me worried that I'm not remembering some piece of it in The Grand Budapest Hotel... but the larger point I was clumsily trying to make is that there's a good amount of economy in Anderson's editing in this film, telling what feels to me like a 120+ minute story in the short order of 99 minutes - and some details like

SpoilerShow

Zero and Agatha's romance or Serge X.'s backstory

aren't given quite as much time as I would have liked. But who knows - perhaps these sorts of details were written in, filmed, and later edited out because they just weren't working, farbeit from me to criticize someone who could put together this sort of staggering film - it really is such a feast for the senses, to write it off as merely aping Powell & Pressburger or creating some sort of ornate dollhouse seems to be beside the point of how incredibly ballsy and fascinating it is to create such a singular piece of work in 2014 - Anderson really is doing the Lord's work at this point for cinephiles - finding details and techniques that've either never been done or have long since been forgotten in the last several decades - he's sort of a mainstream and much more digestible/traditional Guy Maddin here.

[Jeff]

Does anyone know if this will be shown in theatres in FLAT with pillarboxing for 1.33 and letterboxing for 2.35...

This. The DCP is framed at 1.85 with pillarboxing and letterboxing for the 1.37 and 2.35 ratios, respectively.

I was curious while watching the film why the decision was made to both pillarbox and letterbox the 1.85, making it look rather terrible on a cinema screen, rather than allowing those bookend portions of the film to fill the frame entirely. However, I was lucky enough to see this framed perfectly projection-wise (at the Ritz Five in Philadelphia...)

I was a bit perplexed by the severe windowboxing on the 1.85 scenes as well, though since they can't be much more than five minutes of screen time, it wasn't a huge deal. My guess is that it has something to do with Anderson being such a control freak and not wanting anything misframed or cropped (especially since this seemed to be a widespread problem with Moonrise Kingdom). It should be pointed out that the 2.35 scenes use the full width of the frame, and the 1.37 use the full height. The Esquire here in Denver (also a Landmark) was also very conscientious about projection and explained the ratios to the audience beforehand.

It's certainly Anderson's most meticulously composed film, and also one of his best. I'll write about it more after seeing it a second time tomorrow, but I like your metaphor about being like a child rushed along from place to place in a shopping mall. That's a positive for me. I think that's part of what makes Anderson's films improve so much with repeat viewings. Moonrise Kingdom felt hurried and clipped to me the first time I saw it, but didn't feel that way at all the second time, and by my fourth or fifth trip to the cinema with it, it was my favorite of Anderson's films, and one of my favorite movies period. With Grand Budapest, I too would have liked to see more of Agatha, but beyond that, the breakneck pace gave the whole thing an energy that I would have thought was unsustainable. For me it creates a kind of cinematic euphoria that only Anderson really does well, and there was more of it here than in any of his other films. I think those moments to take a breath and ruminate on what has happened are in the 60s scenes. The empty, sleepy hotel is complimented by F. Murray Abraham's more leisurely line delivery, soaks in the tub, and lengthy dinners of lamb saddle and duck with olives.

[Red Screamer]

I think that although Moonrise Kingdom was fast paced, it had time for several slower scenes (Sam and Suzy's awkward dancing, the Bishop parents' bedroom confessions, and so on). The Grand Budapest Hotel, however, stops for no man and doesn't have even one slowly paced scene. There are probably 10 total seconds of silence in the whole film. As mfunk said, this is such an astounding technical feat that complaining about the pacing may seem nitpick-y, but man I really want to spend more time getting to know these characters. This is the Wes Anderson movie with the weakest emotional pull but the most breathtaking art design (the theater gasped at the beauty of many sets and locations, myself included). Not near the perfection of Anderson's last effort but certainly worth every second.

[FrauBlucher]

Jeff, I look forward to reading your analysis. For me, the fast pace was a non factor and did not detract from my enjoyment. I simply thought it was Anderson's homage to the screwball comedy, one of many in this film. He is the only director living today that can pull off this pacing and not hurt his vision or artistic intent. Bravo to a master.

[Jeff]

This is the Wes Anderson movie with the weakest emotional pull...

I think it has got plenty of "emotional pull," it's just pulling at different emotions than usual. While it certainly evokes the same father-figure relationship that most of Anderson's films do, and even hints at a little Sam and Suzy romance for Zero and Agatha, most of the pathos comes from the elder Zero's longing for what Zweig referred to as "The World of Yesterday." It's a film about nostalgia, about wanting to hang on to a time when we felt -- for a brief moment - as though everything was perfect (even though it probably wasn't), and about the need to construct order from chaos (another recurring Anderson theme). Gustave wants to create this artificially perfect world inside The Grand Budapest while in reality, civilization is crumbling around him. I think it might actually be the most thematically rich of all of Anderson's films.

[FrauBlucher]

Gustave wants to create this artificially perfect world inside The Grand Budapest while in reality, civilization is crumbling around him. I think it might actually be the most thematically rich of all of Anderson's films.

This is why I feel it's his most mature film. Anderson uses history of eastern Europe to create this parrallel universe that's full of insight and metaphors about history and changing times for the individual as well as society.

[mfunk9786]

Someone on Twitter (don't remember who, sorry) made the rather interesting observation that it seems that Anderson has abandoned having any of his characters walk diagonally ever again since the zig-zag down the hill in The Darjeeling Limited. I obviously have no evidence to support that, but it's certainly amusing.

[Jeff]

Anderson is still immersed in what psychologists refer to as flow, and what athletes refer to as “the zone.” As with Moonrise Kingdom, he is in complete command of his wholly unique brand of cinematic craftsmanship. Over the course of his eight-film career he’s been repeatedly labeled precious and twee, too focused on his highly controlled set and costume design, line readings and camera moves. It was once argued by many, including myself, that Anderson would have to somehow stop making “Wes Anderson films” to grow as an artist. It turns out that the key to his greatest success was not breaking free from his particular aesthetic, but immersing himself deeper in it.

Though it is encased in a series of framing devices in other time periods, the bulk of The Grand Budapest Hotel takes place in 1932, and like the Ernst Lubitsch comedies of that period that partly inspired it, the story is set in a sort of artificial Europe. Anderson invents countries, and currencies, languages, and political movements, but they represent the very real dissolution of interbellum Europe. The slapstick on the film’s surface is suffused with a deep underlying melancholy, and virtually every character is beset with a tragic past or future.

The titular hotel’s concierge is embodied by Ralph Fiennes in one of his best performances. His Gustave H. presides over the ragtag family that is the hotel staff, with special affection for his new lobby boy, who will become a trusted protege and valet. Ersatz families and surrogate fathers are very familiar themes for Anderson, but they take on new significance when set against the backdrop of a war that threatens to destroy a culture and annihilate a continent.

For Gustave, the war means the end of the brand of civility that is his stock-in-trade. At his hotel, he constructs for his guests a reprieve from the ugliness of their lives. His fussiness and strict control in creating an artificial world to escape the harshness of the real one is reminiscent of the way Max Fischer or Margot Tenenbaum created their plays, and Suzy Bishop got lost in her stories. Of course it’s mostly reminiscent of Anderson himself, who busies himself with his animatics, miniatures, and elaborate props and costumes, constructing fantasies that he has complete control of.

Lest this sound like the film is a didactic treatise on the cultural casualties of war, let me emphasize that The Grand Budapest Hotel is first and foremost a farce, with a brand of deadpan humor rarely found in modern movies. It’s uproariously entertaining, especially for those of us who love movies and their history. Wes Anderson is clearly a devoted cinephile himself, and that has never been displayed more clearly than in this film. Besides Lubitsch and 30s screwball, the film is drenched in oblique references to Powell & Pressburger, Renoir, and Kubrick -- and not-so-oblique references to Hitchcock and his imitators, with Torn Curtain and Night Train to Munich quoted explicitly.

Anderson is in love with the techniques of cinema too. He’s got miniatures, matte paintings, stop-motion animation, camera irises, multiple aspect ratios, black and white, and of course more tracking shots, crash zooms, and 90-degree whip-pans then you’ll see the rest of the year. This is his most artificial and constructed movie, but it’s one of his most sincere too. Anderson and his characters wear their hearts on their sleeves. Anderson’s heart is with the movies, and boy does it show. He’s having fun, and ensures that his audience does too. Howard Hawks once told Peter Bogdanovich that when it came to directors, he liked “almost anybody that made you realize who in the devil was making the picture.” There can’t be any doubt about who made The Grand Budapest Hotel.