Did Wes Anderson direct his latest film via email? (with video)

October 12, 11:37 AMDallas Comedy ExaminerScott Wampler

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Dallas Comedy Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Wes Anderson: Email Director (seen here in a ridiculously big photo from RottenTomatoes.com)

Wes Anderson's films are absolutely essential viewing for comedy film geeks: "Rushmore", "The Royal Tennenbaums", and "The Life Aquatic" are all hilarious, deadpan dramedies that have earned the director an avalanche of glowing reviews.  But now there's reports that the director took an extremely hands-off approach to the filming of his latest film, and it's...well, it's weird.  The Comedy Examiner investigates so that you don't have to.  Read on, my gentle Examiner readers...

Wes Anderson's movies tend to yield some strong reactions from audiences.  It's a "love him or hate him" kinda thing where you either appreciate the tone and style that Anderson uses in every film...or you don't.  Case in point: "The Darjeeling Limited", which so divided a couple of friends of the Comedy Examiner that they haven't spoken since.  Yeah, that's stupid.  They know.  Aaanyway, Anderson's now ready to release "The Fantastic Mr. Fox"-- a stop-motion animation comedy for kids--and there's a bit of controversy surrounding the making of the film.  Before we get into that, check out the trailer right here:

Anyway, CHUD.com is reporting a story (by way of the L.A. Times) that Anderson's crew on "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" merrily tossed him under the bus by claiming that the director was almost entirely absent through the making of the film, preferring to submit demands and direction via email to the people working on the film.  Say wha?  Here's a couple quotes from the original article:

He wasn't working on another project, and nothing Paris-centric demanded he be there; Anderson simply "didn't want to be at Three Mills Studios for two years." The move did little to endear Anderson to his subordinates.

The article goes on to quote one of the crew members on the film:

It's not in the least bit normal," director of photography Tristan Oliver observed at the production's East London set last spring, when production on "Mr. Fox" was about three-quarters complete. "I've never worked on a picture where the director has been anywhere other than the studio floor!"

OK, let's offer up one last example of the crew tossing Anderson under the bus:

"Honestly? Yeah. He has made our lives miserable," the film's director of animation, Mark Gustafson, said during a break in shooting. He gave a weary chuckle. "I probably shouldn't say that."

The article goes on to describe Anderson as being "taken aback" by these criticisms.  He explains-- but doesn't really address the unconvential shooting style (read: not being there to shoot)-- that he just wanted the film to look a very specific way, and that this meant avoiding the "modern technology" that would usually be employed to make this kinda movie.  The article does go on to describe Anderson's emails, though, which involved the director being "really thorough and very specific about certain gestures, how he (wanted) a look to happen" and sending "short films of himself enacting certain scenes".

Makes ya wonder: how much credit can the director be given if he wasn't on-set for filming?  If he gave direction, really specific directions, through email, does that "count"?  Some film geeks are divided on this process, like the aformentioned Devin Faraci of CHUD, who had this to say:

It's almost shocking that he wouldn't want to be involved in the process more heavily, especially since he was a complete neophyte to stop-motion when he began. Many of the best directors working today throw themselves into new technologies and forms with abandon, trying to figure them out. Anderson seems content to let other people deal with the messy stuff, which to me belies a lack of enthusiasm for the nuts and bolts of filmmaking.

So, what do you think, Examiner readers?  Does a filmmaker who never steps foot on set (or steps foot on set very rarely) but provides his commands through email get full credit for having directed a film?  Or should the majority of the credit go to the cast and crew that were actually on set, making it happen?  Sound off below in the comments section, folks: we wanna hear what you have to say about these shenanigans.

And, while you're here, check out these other recent articles from the Comedy Examiner's Office:

"Arrested Development" and "Juno" stars writing HBO's latest comedy series"-- in which we learn about HBO's forthcoming comedy series, who's writing it, and blah, blah, blah.  Check it out.

 "Bill Maher's 'New Rules' online: "Everyone Deserves Equal Rights"-- we link you to Bill Maher's latest "New Rules" installment, which is good news for Bill Maher fans, not so much non-fans.

"The Sarah Silverman/Vatican Controversy: Shocking or Expected?"-- in which we look at the controversy surrounding Sarah Silverman's recent video, seen on "Real Time With Bill Maher" this past Friday. 

"Comedy Examiner Review: Curb Your Enthusiasm"-- a review of last night's "Curb" episode, check it out!