La merveilleuse histoire d'Henry Sugar

I am not familliar with any previous works or repuation of the creators whatsover, I just watched this short movie out of curiosity since it was on Netflix.

So this seemed to be a sort of first person narrative where the characters speak the story themselves? Think of it when a person reads a book out loud at home, but in this case they are reading to us the viewers.

The story of this piece focused on various qualities of generosity and depthful feelings. It was interesting to see the characters describe their feelings while not showing any type of emotions. Due to the nature of this film, I wasn't sure what to think, the concept is good but I found it perplexing.

My only issue is the pacing, I am unsure if this was on purpose or not. This flim piece moved way too fast, to where even I had trouble keeping up or understanding what was going on. Perhaps this is how the film was designed to be or I needed a deeper level of understanding?

As much as this is pure Uncut 1100% pure white as the driven snow Wes Anderson, including one of his most thrilling tracking shots and rear-screen projection that made me laugh hard enough for the neighbors to sit up and probably want to check it out for themselves, it is also a perfect distillation of Roald Dahl's perfectly eccentric and wildly over-elaborate storytelling and construction of one plot into another.

Maybe you haven't read Dahl in a while if you were one of those kids who read him a lot (I know he has a reputation today, but he could objectively write comedy and quirk like nobody's business), but even if that's so the recognition of his voice will come back to you like a long dormant dream. It's also fascinating to see the clockwork-theatrical staging from Asteroid City taken even further. I'd ask him why he doesn't direct theater, but then he would look at me like I was a fool - why do that when he has the overwhelming power of control of the Frame of Cinema at his disposal?

The thing about this Henry Sugar film that I like on top of the perfectly calibrated balancing act between very human comedy and quixotic and deadpan fantasy that we know Anderson can do in his sleep (though I imagine as easy as it looks it takes a lot of concentration to get right with DP Yeoman), the performances are just right and add to the flavor of the piece. Call it shallow, but I just enjoy how soothing the voices of Cumberbatch, Dev Patel, Kingsley and even to an extent Fiennes are, like they could almost be ASMR-ing you with the Dahl words that get spun like a marathon sprinter who is running in this precision that dazzles you because it almost is inexplicable (just like, I might posit for comparison, what the men can see with their eyes closed after concentrating hard for days and years on end).

Last but not least: Benedict Cumberbatch in a dress = most unlikely kind of attractive walking cartoon in a dress since Bugs Bunny.

I'm watching a pop-up storybook; colors, editing, and composition are stylish and adorable. However, actors read lines too fast. I'm out of breath just by watching. I'm not sure Anderson was intentional to daze the audience, but it does not work on short films. The audience is ready to engage and focus at least for forty minutes. It might have worked in a two-hour film.

I'm watching a pop-up storybook; colors, editing, and composition are stylish and adorable. However, actors read lines too fast. I'm out of breath just by watching. I'm not sure Anderson was intentional to daze the audience, but it does not work on short films. The audience is ready to engage and focus at least for forty minutes. It might have worked in a two-hour film.

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is a great short film that doesn't waste a second of its shorter run time and definitely works as a short film in a way a feature length film simply cannot. The energy, the pace and the complexity comes together so well in an exhilarating, immaculate story of kindness.

Unusually, this is a cast who are mostly new to the world of Wes but Benedict Cumberbatch, Dev Patel and Ben Kingsley are note perfect here in a way that hopefully results in many more future collaborations. Richard Ayoade on the other hand, feels surprisingly underutilised.

Wes Anderson has never had more control of the frame or everything inside it. It's standard issue that it's going to be gorgeous to look at and rife with detail but the real strength of his direction here is the way it's able to feel so theatrical in its construction yet still be inherently cinematic.

I think we can all agree that the format of this 'content' is very different from what we are used to. On the one hand, it has the features of an "audible book". But it most certainly also has features that fit with a stage play. Actually, it seems like a hybrid of the two, which I for certain have never seen before.

And whilst it is different, people tend to start agreeing with extreme ratings: i.e. They either say they like it very well and give it a rating of 10 stars, or they hate it and go for a 1 star rating. And since I do not want my review being tainted by chosing either of the two camps, I simply chose to not give it an IMDb rating. This so that either camp can agree with my review instead of a rating...

That this is some new type of content is obvious. I personally think it is more a natural evolution of (1) reading books, to (2) audiobooks, and now (3) this new format.

I think a term of "cinematic book" may fit with what we see here: a book that is read to an audience by using renowned actors in a format that fits cinema.

With many new things, I was confused at what exactly I was watching when I started this content. And honestly said, it took me several minutes to adjust to it. As an avid bookreader myself, I have enjoyed quite a number of Roald Dahl's books. Not being a fan of audiobooks myself, I never ever listened to his books. But this "cinematic book" is just a different experience. There is so much added richness to it, that I really started to enjoy it. So rich actually, that I had trouble keeping up with the fast-paced storytelling. There is so much to see in each of the different sets that it is pretty difficult to ingest all you hear and see. And I think this will be even a bigger challenge for viewers from non-english speaking countries which need to rely on subtitles. So, I think it may be a recommendation to (1) first "watch" it with a primary focus on listening to the story, and (2) a second time to enjoy the richly detailed scenes.

Concluding, I think we witness here the evolution of how we may "read" books. An evolution that first started with the introduction of audiobooks, which we now see evolve in a content genre that I can describe best as a "cinematic book". And whilst it takes some moments to get used to, I definitely want to see more of it in the future.