Rushmore

Having seen many Wes Anderson films before this one, it's harder to appreciate how fresh and original Rushmore was in 1998. That being said, I can still appreciate the great characters, idiosyncratic style, and fabulous soundtrack. Bill Murray owes Anderson a debt of gratitude for reviving his career and Anderson owes Murray for bringing some heavyweight comedic talent to his film and putting him on the map. Rushmore is definitely weird, but ultimately sweet and rewarding.

Rushmore was the first Wes Anderson film I saw, and I didn't think much of it the first time. I used to think that Royal Tenenbaums was Anderson's first good film. I thought Bottle Rocket wore its rookie status on its sleeve; I thought Rushmore was flawed; and I thought Tenenbaums finally showed that Anderson had honed his craft and he would start making great films. I then re-watched Tenenbaums and found it to be even more satisfying on additional viewings. I realized that Anderson had actually crafted one of those rare pieces of cinema that reveals itself more and more upon repeat viewings. So I of course decided to give Rushmore a second look.

Now that I've had a chance to see the DVD, I've had a much different experience viewing the film. Perhaps because I saw it on Pan and Scan VHS previously? Or perhaps because Anderson's vision requires an adjustment period?

Some people will never like Anderson's films. They simply will not appeal to those out there who want clichéd Hollywood fodder. Some people will love Anderson's films from the moment they see them. Others, like myself, will need to see the films more than once to truly appreciate them. Anderson breaks convention in ways no one has done before - One has to understand that his films are deep where most films are shallow, and shallow where most films are deep. This will throw A LOT of people off, as evidenced by many of the comments on the message boards. Anderson's films begin where others end. In Rushmore, we see Max's fall from grace, not his climb up to become head of every club in his school. In Tenenbaums, we see the aftermath of the child prodigies, not their glory years. Again, this will throw a lot of people off, and indeed I heard this criticism of Tenenbaums quite a lot. Anderson constructs the world of his films around a cinema storybook. They are episodic, told in chapters. Some will find Anderson at first glance to be a rather egotistical filmmaker, as I once did. However, upon second glance, you can begin to see the rich text woven deeper in the films that might be hidden beneath quirkiness or drastic breaks from convention. The first time I saw Rushmore, I felt shock, embarrassment and confusion (Mostly at Max and Rosemary's bizarre interaction). I was lost and unfamiliar with this world Anderson has created. The second time I saw the film I felt Passion, Love, Tragedy and ultimate Redemption. I found the heart in Anderson's film.

If you felt Rushmore was not all it could have been the first time you saw it, please give it another chance. You'll find which side you fall on.

Max Fischer has a scholarship to exclusive prep school Rushmore, despite the fact that he really isn't as smart as his demeanour would suggest. He relentlessly talks himself up, forms and joins clubs and seems to impress as many people as he annoys – all with a very thin veil of lies to support it. When he falls in love with a teacher (Rosemary Cross) things appear wonderful but it is not long before he has messed it up. His frustrated friend (Herman Blume) tries to help but only succeeds in making things much, much worse and Max risks losing everything that is important to him.

Having recently see The Life Aquatic etc I decided to step back to a film that I feel did Wes Anderson's humour and talent much more of a service and one in which he got the mix just right. To me Rushmore is that film, although this is not to imply that it will appeal to those that just don't like any of his films. The plot is the usual mix of offbeat characters, strange events and deep seated emotions (and usually not happy ones either), it is quirky and humorous but it still works because, unlike Life Aquatic, it has enough heart and plot to balance out the dark quirky humour. To me the story is still a bit strange and difficult to get into but it does the hard work for you and even when I was still getting into it I was interested if not totally involved. The heart of the story is not one I could relate to, but I was able to feel for the characters and got into it quickly as a result – none of them are instantly likable characters or simple ones but they are still well written and delivered. The humour is never really consistently hilarious but to complain about a lack of belly laughs is to miss the point; for me the dark humour was well done and I found the film funny even when it didn't draw laughs from me.

The cast are impressive and work well with the material they are given. Murray has much more meat in this supporting role than he did with Zissou and he does very good work with it throughout while also managing to carry off his deadpan delivery as well as usual. Schwartzman is spot on with a character that we are never able to truly like but have to get behind at the same time – he pitches it just right and shows a great understanding of his character. Williams is beautiful and vulnerable and works well in her role while support is good from Cox and Cassel as well as several others in support roles and cameos. Special mention to Tanaka for being the sweetest redemption I've seen in many a film and pulls off the geeky but wonderful girl of many of our dreams.

Overall this is a good film but not one that will appeal to the majority of viewers or be the one to win over those that just don't like Wes Anderson's films. The plot and characters are interesting throughout and the film succeeds because it manages to mix emotional content with darkly quirky humour rather than doing one at the expense of the other. An enjoyable film and probably my favourite from Anderson thus far.

Very rarely can a director evoke so much awkwardness and kindness from his/her silent moments in their films. Wes Anderson is one filmmaker who can. His characters are so richly drawn, finely acted and beautifully directed, that even when they're not speaking... we can read their emotions, we feel their pain. Young Jason Swartzman gives a fantastic performance. Even nicer is the surprise turn by Bill Murray, who manages to play a good guy and a villain at the same time. In one scene he is wearing Budweiser boxer shorts on a diving board. He is smoking a cigarette and jumps, doing a cannonball into his sewer-ridden pool. We see him curled up at the bottom of his pool, drowning himself in misery. Is this a connection to his future lover's dead husband? Who knows. But what we do know is that Anderson has crafted his film to star the most unlikely of heroes. They are the oddest of the bunch, but at the same time we know what they are going through. Their oddness aside, what we learn to see more of, is their hearts. It is obvious Anderson has wiped his heart all over this piece, and it pays off more than I'm sure he ever could have imagined.

Wes Anderson's first big success came with "Rushmore," released in 1998.

And with approval I can say that it is a funny movie. With characters like Max Fischer (played by Jason Schwartzman) or Herman Blume (played by Bill Murray), it features two unique and compelling characters. They made me really laugh several times. Especially in the first half of Max with subliminal jokes.

It's an unusual plot. Sometimes with humor, sometimes with full seriousness, about love and friendship to ambition and passion. Although the plot does not always follow the same direction and digresses from time to time, nevertheless, development in character and plot can be seen.

It is a film of the classic kind. Anderson's unique film style as in "Grand Budapest Hotel" or other films is not yet pronounced. Nevertheless, the film is produced in a high quality.