Asteroid City

I saw 'ASTEROID CITY' yesterday...and I have a mixed feelings about it.... As usual, stylistically very impressive, with strong emphasis on ensemble work of actors, as it's usually happens in Wes Anderson's movies.

When movie is considered ensemble piece the pressure of a film success falls on the shoulders of the director. In a normal narrative film the protagonist and antagonist often take the burden of film success on themselves, hoping that the audience will emphasize with our lead characters and their character arc, to be immersed in the story during the full running time.

There is a risk however if the audience doesn't connect with performances the status of leading man or a woman is in jeopardy, with producers in the future not wanting to green light another film with actors, which were unable to handle the "weight" of the movie.

This is why plenty of actors like to work on movies which offer ensemble feel. They don't have to spend many months on filmset, instead they come for few days, shoot their scenes and can move on to the next project. If their performance didn't work they are always supported by other quality actors, so it doesn't ruin the whole film. In ether way Wes Anderson's style always comes on top, as actors who work with him understand the particular speed of lines delivery, as well as dryness of the dialog.

Stylistically it's very much what we expect from Anderson. Cinematography is more interesting then usual with a strong emphasis on production and costumes design. The camera movement feel bit more free then usual and yet the composition is always full of symmetry, which is the calling card of Wes. He even included few inserts (close ups of objects, which normally make thinks appear more cinematic) which for his filmmaking style is rather unusual. As well as few "Dutch angles", which make the audience feel sense of distorted reality in moments of surrealism.

The color correction ranging from black and white to colorful over saturation is rather visually interesting.

There is a lot of quality here, but I am afraid 'ASTEROID CITY' might not be everyone's taste, although fans of Anderson know what to expect and should have a good time.

More casual viewers might feel like this film is a little stylistically disjointed.

For me I appreciate what Wes was trying to accomplish and always admire his stylistic consistency, which has its benefits (you know what to expect), but also it's throwbacks, when Wes just like in this case is trying to explore a new filmmaking narrative techniques.

Recommend! 👍

Few independent filmmakers have a style as unique and distinctive as Wes Anderson's, whose signature aesthetic is almost immediately recognizable upon watching one of his films. Yet his films are not just aesthetically engaging; they tend to be hilarious and well-written in a quirky, down-to-earth way. As a fan of his work, I was looking forward to "Asteroid City." This retro sci-fi tale of a UFO/alien sighting in a 1950s desert town certainly delivers Anderson's expected vibes, but fails to pair the visuals and auteurist elements with an engaging, emotionally impactful plot or character development that is equally strong and/or effective.

The film is a true ensemble piece, and doesn't have a clear main character. This would be fine if the wide array of characters involved were more compellingly written, but the screenplay treats their motivations as simply second fiddle to "style," world-building, and more abstract themes. Thematically, the film also seems a bit inert, seeming to jump around in subtext without providing the plot context to justify it--including through the framing device of a play. Anderson's large ensemble cast generally does pretty well with the material they are given, but their actions feel removed from consequence or plot relevance to make us feel a lot fo their characters. The brilliant craftsmanship on display mildly offsets these concerns--from the outstanding production design, cinematography, costume design, and editing--which are well-done even by Wes Anderson's standards. Yet the lack of a comparatively developed plot or character motivations is a bit jarring compared to his better films, such as "The Grand Budapest Hotel," "Moonrise Kingdom," "The Royal Tenebaums," and "Fantastic Mr. Fox." Even the anthology structure in "The French Dispatch" felt more character-driven and authentic, and thus more conceptually engaging than this film. Make no mistake, Anderson is and has always been a creative visionary, and his fans should generally have a good time while watching this film. It's just a little bit unfortunate that the film comes off as more hollow and forgettable than it should, despite plenty of positive qualities as well. Recommended only to Wes Anderson fans. 6.5/10.

As much as I love the artistic visuals and whimsical charm of a Wes Anderson film, this one was mildly disappointing. There were long speeches that didn't land with humor, weird pacing issues, and a nested framing device of a TV broadcast, the play, and its real-world creators that didn't do anything for me. Maybe it would take a repeat viewing, because the intention behind this was confusing, and it overshadowed the fine little moments that were scattered throughout the movie. As with The French Dispatch, the cast is jam-packed with stars, but unnecessarily so, as many seemed underused, and it felt like there were too many characters. This one needed simplification, a better story, and more heart.

People were laughing in the quaint historic theater I watched this film in. But I was not. I laughed one time, when you watch it you'll know the time.

The striking thing about these last couple of Wes Anderson movies is how they're becoming a parody of themselves. I can appreciate film as art vs film as entertainment. This takes entertainment disguised as art and commercializes it to a degree I find distasteful.

It was a pretty film. I loved the colors. I can respect it's aesthetic and that's where all the stars came from. I also love Schwartzmann.

The way the story was told as some kind of slowly unfolding meta-melodrama of a play within a film managed to completely chop the film into indigestible pieces. Ive rarely been that disinterested in the plot of a film.

Last thought. What on earth makes all of these famous actors want to be in these films??? Is it money? Is it the desire to see your own face with some pretty symmetrical colors in the background? Wes Anderson hasn't made a good film in years. We can continue to respect him from afar for doing something unique. Far enough away we don't have to watch....

There were two perspectives I noted while watching it.

1.) It is commentary on the state of cinema. A movie within a movie where the production of the "blockbuster" makes no sense. But as the actors in the film slowly question why they are even making it, they realize its ok if the film they're making is fun. Life sometimes has no rationale, it's just something we experience. Trying to find meaning in something so ridiculous is the point of Asteroid City.

2.) It is commentary on the 2020 Covid Pandemic. Asteroid City bears witness to a life-changing event and is forced into quarantine. Characters try to find meaning to all of it but life has a funny way of making no sense. Eventually, the quarantine lifts and life resumes. What was once a traumatic event feels like yesterday's news.

In a literal sense, it's a movie about a stage-play. Asteroid City is the play, and the black and white stuff is real-life. When the playwright dies unexpectedly, the actors are left confused because they never found out what the point of the play was. A sense of loss both literally and metaphorically.

It's very much about the struggle to make sense of an absurd world, and the different ways people cope with that. It's a VERY existentialist film, and IMHO steeped in the philosophy of Camus and Sartre.