Hotel Chevalier

Hotel Chevalier quickly charts the fallout of a complicated relationship in stylish and thoughtful fashion, it's absolutely not essential viewing for the Darjeeling Limited itself but has enough substance to match the gorgeous style making it a worthy addition.

Jason Schwartzman and Natalie Portman are great, in very limited screen time they establish a fiery chemistry with an engaging back and forth as they debate the future of their relationship, helped by dialogue that communicates so much with so few words.

Wes Anderson's direction is as flawless as ever. Its beautifully saturated and yellow in particular has rarely been this prominent or this good looking. All of the luscious visuals are complimented by his almost uncanny ability for perfectly timed needle drops.

Designed as a semi-independent prelude to "The Darjeeling Limited", "Hotel Chevalier" proves that ten minutes of Wes Anderson's wizardry are worth more than many another big-budget director's feature-length film. It's a study in the pain and the lust only love can bring, as well as a variation of Anderson's trademark motif, control. Where "The Darjeeling Limited" bubbles over with substance abuse, poisonous snakes, restroom romps, brotherly affection and fatal accidents, "Hotel Chevalier" is a quiet and slightly eerie two-character mini drama set in a lavish Merchant-Ivory style suite. The suite's sole resident is a reclusive control-freak writer in a long-distance relationship (Jason Schwartzman). We watch as he half enjoys, half endures a surprise visit by his control-freak girlfriend (Natalie Portman). Is she a woman of flesh and blood, or is she just an imaginary incarnation of the jet-setting girl from "Where do you go to my lovely", the song Peter keeps playing on his portable stereo? There's no knowing what's real and what isn't in Anderson's paper moon world. But the importance of fact and fiction fades as she reclines on the bed and has Peter take off her spike-heeled boots. It's the most emotionally and sexually loaded scene I have seen in a long time, like a 20-second tango. It seems some of Natalie Portman's best work is done in shorts set in Paris. Remember Tom Tykwer's "True"?

This film is about the relationship between two characters in a hotel room.

As a standalone film, I am not sure "Hotel Chevalier" works. Is the plot the only excuse to get Natalie Portman completely naked? And is there really a plot? It seems to be trying to say something between the two characters, but I don't know what. Maybe ambivalence? Or Natalie Portman's character is trying to shut Jason Schwartzman off? I am not so sure. After watching the short film I am very confused about everything.

The hotel room is very nice, the sets are well decorated, and the scenes are thoughtfully composed. However, these are not enough to make a film watchable.

I am sure it will make more sense after watching The Darjeeling Limited. So why make this as a standalone film, and not integrate it into the main film?

Modern filmmakers seem to scorn the smaller canvas of the short film, which is a shame because beautiful things can be drawn in small, vivid detail. Some films simply don't warrant a feature, as The Darjeeling Limited exemplifies.

Hotel Chevalier is a prelude to that film, and it largely works because Anderson lays bare feelings that remain inscrutable, allows to blossom a sense of history and time past between the two lovers. In their small, intimate moments in a hotel room, I get the sense of a time that extends back and forward, that these people loved, were hurt or excited, elsewhere, in some other time, and this snapshot is all that remains.

This is memory, a sense of place and time. The flow of life suspended for a brief moment, where lives entire can fit.

Watching this also reminds me how much Anderson's original style, a subject of much celebration among his fans, is in fact Aki Kaurismaki.

At the end of The Darjeeling Limited, Jack has written the end of a short story and it is essentially the majority of the short film Hotel Chevalier. Francis reads it and comments that it is hard to judge without knowing the rest of it and indeed this may have been a reference to the fact that you need to watch this short film in immediate combination with the film. Others have asked why this part of the story was broken up from the film when it is clearly part of the story but my feelings on that are to simply shrug and ask when Wes Anderson ever did anything that was straightforward? So a separate short film it is and to appreciate it you do need to know "the rest of it".

Looking back on it from more of a knowledgeable position in regards the character is to introduce a level of understanding and emotional interest that is lacking the first time you watch it. Dealing with the film as a short film in its own right, this is clearly a failing because it cannot (or does not) deliver this on its own but does need the feature to do it. Even with the film it is more a matter of back-story than really informing the events of the short – ie the short fits into the film rather than the short suddenly holding a lot of meaning to the viewer. So in terms of content, while it is "better" watched with the film, it still doesn't deserve to be a separate entity.

I suppose the one thing in its defence would be that, as an upmarket trailer, it will really work for Anderson's fans. The short has a great air to it and all the style and tone that exist within his films. The restrained and yet brooding emotion of his two characters are well painted in the dialogue but, more importantly, Schwartzman and Portman nail it – the former in particular showing as much pain as desire in his actions and language. The colours and the shots all make the film look great and Anderson makes great use of the limited space within the hotel and for fans it will be a matter of lapping this up. But for me I have the same reservations as I have had with one or two of his features in the way that the style and manner may interest me but there is nothing of substance to really engage with or feel for.

Hotel Chevalier is a strange beast then; it can be viewed in several ways but it is not that great in any of them. As a part of the Darjeeling Limited feature it is a solid couple of scenes but not more or less remarkable than the rest of the film. As a stand alone film it offers style and typically Anderson manner but very little in the way of real meat. While as a high-brow trailer it does have the style and content to excite fans but then also feels a bit "big" just to be used to sell a product. Regardless it does have good stuff in the style, the performances, the simmering emotion and the overall delivery but it badly needed to either be part of the film or expanded and strengthened to be able to stand alone as a short film that "connects" to the feature rather than being "connected" to it (if you appreciate the difference).