In Honor of my Poster

Submerging into Wes Anderson’s

Life Aquatic

© 2004 Touchstone Pictures. All rights reserved

Life Aquatic, Wes Anderson’s new film examining the life of underwater adventurer Steve Zissou, has been met with mixed reviews. Josh Bell, in reference to Mr. Anderson, believes this film “serve[s] as a demonstration of the vapidity of his so-called brilliance.” Yet, the very same film finds relief in the perhaps over-sunned eyes of the L.A. Times: “An exquisitely evocative movie that elevates rueful melancholia to a superpower.” Rotten Tomatoes (an on-line system that compiles reviews of movies and attempts to come to a rating) has found itself very useless: arriving at 50% marks in both its general survey and specialized rating that symbolizes only the solid dichotomy of critical opinion[1]. So the question remains, is this a good movie? Well most would look at the box-office. And with this a definite answer is found. After over 3 weeks in nation-wide release Life Aquatic has only made 22 million dollars, not even a half of the film’s cost. Thus, this film has become Anderson’s first auteur-styled belly-flop at the box-office[2]. At least the Royal Tenenbaums was a critical success. Has Wes really lost it?

No. Well that was a bit quick I admit. He has lost it, in the sense of making films that most likely have no hope for bringing their investors back heaps of money. But has he lost any of his talent? No at all. It has only grown, and it is perhaps that growth that explains the strong reactions of critics across the nation.

Life Aquatic stands as Anderson’s most bold and expensive film, but still caste in the same tradition of his previous films Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums. Then why the strong change in critic opinion? Because in combining the qualities of those two previous films, within such an expansive story what is old appears new again. Strangely enough it is one of Anderson’s greatest achievements that this film has been seen as a deviation by some critics. Why? Because what is called ‘deviation’ by some is really the following: evolution.

The evolution was painful. In shooting a film that runs from France, to Antarctica, to the Sea aboard the Zissou ship- The Belafonte, Anderson has made a film that has challenged both viewers and critics alike. But in so doing, he has crafted a film that is enriching to all those that seriously watch it. A film that will certainly out-last Sorceress’s ‘The Aviator’ regardless of the difference in accolade accumulation. And that does not mean knowing all the instead jokes that some critics believe sink this cinematic ship.

Life Aquatic: Seaward Evolution

“We’re all a pack of strays- don’t you get it?’ – Steve Zissou

The similarities between and ‘Life Aquatic’ and Andersons’ past films are many and significant. At their core ‘Rushmore’, ‘The Royal Tenenbaums’ and ‘Life Aquatic’ all document the quest of reconnection and family forging for their central characters. Max Fischer of ‘Rushmore’ creates an artificial family consisting of a widowed-obsessed elementary school teacher and a chronically depressed business man. Royal Tenenbaums documents a real family of geniuses all trying to re-connect with one another after the return of their neglectful father, Royal. And one finds that ‘Life Aquatic’ takes this quest for family and takes it to the extreme.

Bill Murray (Steve Zissou) is a man finding himself in the throes of a mid-life crisis. Once a respected and revered under-water adventurer, he knows is a laughing stock and considered a hack. Not only have his last four film documentaries been panned by the European art-studio circuit, he has lost his last remaining support. His partner, Esteban, has been killed- eaten alive by the Jaguar Shark. With his professional and emotional life collapsing one finds that his marriage is in shambles and that he is drug dependent. And so Steve Zissou plans his last mission: to take the crew of the Belafonte and kill the shark that has taken his last sense of stability in the world. So what if it’s risky? So what if they have no money? The reason for this mission is clear: revenge. Revenge for both Steve’s lost compatriot and the lost life.

Steve’s precarious survival rests in the loyalty of his crew. This crew consists of Pele, the Portuguese ‘safety expert’ whose only qualifications seems to be his ability to play David songs and shoot light flares into the water. Vikam is the silent camera man, who is spending most of his time trying to bring electricity back to the aging Belafonte. Wolodarsky while trained as a physicist serves as the original score composer of the ship. And Ogata who seems to do nothing but can hold his breathe for 7 minutes and 34 seconds. Renzo, a silent sound man and editor, and a consistently topless Anne-Marie round-out the support staff of the Zissou operation. Their mission: to help craft the documentaries of Steve’s infamous adventures. Leading this support team is Klaus (Willem Dafoe), a German desperately wanting to hold the place that Esteban held in Steve’s heart. Thrown into this rather spiritless crew is Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson) and the overly British Jane Winslett-Richardson (Cate Blachette). Both these additions bring there own burdens onto the already besieged family. Jane is pregnant with a fatherless child. And Ned is searching for his father. A father who may, or may not, be Steve Zissou. Quite the family Steve has found himself in.

Also, Life Aquatic continues the centrality of death that is found in Anderson’s ‘Rushmore’ and ‘Royal Tenebaums’. Max Fischer’s sense of identity in Rushmore results from the fact that his mother dying wish was for him to attend Rushmore Academy. Royal fabrication of his terminal condition is the crux of the plot of the ‘Royal Tenebaums’. And now the central plot device resides in the death of Esteban.

One finds also that Anderson continues his utilization of the meta-film. Rushmore was set as a play, in which Max Fischer directs plays. Royal Tenenbaums is set up as a visual novel. And now Anderson constructs a film that is a documentary about Steve Zissou, who happens to be producing a documentary himself. Further, Anderson expands the world of his film. Steve is made the clear center of this film, much as Max was in ‘Rushmore’. Yet, utilizing the structure of the Belafonte, he brings to the film the dramatic flair that was found within the Tenenbaums household of ‘The Royal Tenenbaums’- a film who’s plot never had a clear focal point. Indeed, Anderson has morphed the sterling qualities of ‘Rushmore’ and ‘The Royal Tenenbaums’, producing the first epic Wes Anderson film.

This might all seem too much to bear. And the film does teeter close to implosion, but what keeps it together is the structure that clearly rests the burden of the film on Bill Murray playing Steve Zissou. And as anyone who was viewed ‘Lost in Translation’, there is not a more talented American actor for such a heavy burden as him. But in addition, Anderson also allows within his film screen-plays what could be called pressure-equalizers. Anderson is constantly aware that we are watching this film that is mainly about making a film. And in so doing, he permits the dialogue to release the burden of this heavily layered film. In the following scene he vents the frustrations of the viewer through the film itself.

Anne-Marie (fully clothed): “We’re all being lead on a suicide mission by a selfish maniac.”

Wilhelm: “You have a point. But I think you misjudge the man.”

So what exactly is this ‘man’ trying to bring us?

The Truth at the Bottom of the Sea:

“I need to find a father for this baby.”[3]

This film is at heart a quest of reconnection. It documents the self-discovery of Steve, and through this epicenter tells the story of the revitalization of the Steve Zissou team. And this journey is brought through Ned Plimpton- the son(?) of Steve. And what makes the journey so groundbreaking in the opus of Anderson works, it the new embrace of overt pain in bringing the joyful conclusion of this comedy.

This becomes clear when one asserts that the center of the film can be gleaned through the musical score of the film. In the official soundtrack for the film, one finds an usual repetition. David Bowie’s song, “Life on Mars” is played twice[4]. This is hidden to the viewer by the fact that it is once played in its original form, and then repeated as a Portuguese serenade by Pele, the guitar playing safety expert.

The song itself has an interesting history[5]- that only highlights the referential nature of Anderson’s works. David Bowie composed the song as a parody on the Frank Satire hit “My Way”. It turns out that Bowie wrote the original melody of “My Way” in 1968, whose rights were quickly bought up by Paul Anka. Anka then used the melody to construct the song “My Way”, which became a Sinatra classic- and one in which Bowie received no credit or real financial appreciation. And thus we constructed an satirical piece bringing its listeners lyrics such as “Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow” and “Lenin is on sale again”.

Yet, the use of this song the only slow motion shot of Steve himself highlights the direct link up with him. The fist iteration of the Bowie piece occurs right after Steve is introduced to Ned. Upon being confronted with his son he asks to be excused for one moment, and runs to the stern of the ship where alone, and in slow motion he stares into the water, smoking. During this haunting scene Bowie surreal melody creeps in, and one hears:

Sailors fighting in the dance hall

Oh man! Look at those cavemen go

It's the freakiest show

Take a look at the Lawman

Beating up the wrong guy

Oh man! Wonder if he'll ever know

He's in the best selling show

Is there life on Mars?

Indeed this highlights the conflicted relationship between Steve Zissou and his apparent son Ned Plimpton. Steve and Ned stand as opposites: Ned moral, southerner from the landlocked state Kentucky; whereas Steve devoid of an accent, morals and perhaps over- submerged in the sea. And this doesn’t even get to the real source of conflict: Steve’s refusal for 27 years ever to acknowledge or verify that Ned potential biological standing as his son. This all grows within a Oedipus-Hamlet hybrid screenplay. Both of them are naturally smitten with Jane. And when it becomes apparent the son has outflanked the father on this bird of prey, these two sailors come to fight. Additionally, Steve while refusing to ever seriously speak with his son quickly whisks him on his voyage. Furthermore, he unilaterally changes Ned’s name to Kingsley ‘Ned’ Zissou (in the guise of purchasing Ned new letterhead stock). And naturally Ned tries to push the label ‘Dad’ onto Steve. Steve refused, finding that ‘Steve-sie’ gets is better for the documentary. Both these characters are trying to fight each other into their proper, romanticized role- leading to disastrous consequences. Steve and Ned drag each other to the middle of no-where searching for the mythical Jaguar Shark. Both are asking if there can be life for this neglected father-son duo; indeed, they are both are looking for life on mars.

And all of this is being watched by the reporter, Jane who finds herself in love with Ned. Indeed she serves as the “girl with the mousey hair” that opens Bowie’s song. She indeed watches Ned and Steve fight on the ship, watching this documentary occur. And indeed she is watching the tired story of fathers and sons trying to reconnect, making the film in Bowie’s terms “saddening bore, for she has seen it ten times before”. Indeed she is the only one on the ship with a concrete problem, a unexpected child with no father- indeed making her surrounding by fools. Yet, they remain fools not because they are not focusing on the right show. While fighting over Jane, they are missing the true story: the story of their reconnection and forgiveness.

And indeed this forgiveness occurs within one of the most touching and disturbing scenes. Ned, who was a pilot for Air Kentucky, before joining the Belafonte, is flying Steve over the suspected coordinates of the illusive Jaguar Shark. The helicopter concretely reflects the decrepit state of Steve: its age in at least 20, it has no safety belts and every time he has flown it with Ned there is also an issue about the maintenance of the aircraft. And of course, on this third flight we find them in dire straights. Right after both concede to desperately needing the other (through what else but letters they wrote and kept from one another for 13 years), the helicopter suddenly stops churning.

Crash. And the screen screeches silently:

Red

White

Red, White

Red, White, Red, Red, Red

And then we find ourselves gasping for air as we find Steve doing so. Soon he fall back into comfort upon realizing he is alright. He swims to Ned. Ned appears fine, but as he drifts out of consciousness we are shown the blood-laden water that lies beneath him.

And it is at the funeral of Ned one hears again, the quiet serenade of Bowie’s “Life on Mars”. Pele strums it gently in Portuguese as the on-sea wake is displayed. Now the ‘best-selling show’ that Steve finally allowed himself into is over- almost as fast as it started. “Life on Mars” now comes to express the frustrated hope to find life that is out of reach. Yet, it is in Ned’s death that Steve finally becomes a father. Steve formally adopts Ned, making himself and his wife the new parents of a dead child. And Jane, who was close to finding the father for her baby, now is alone once again.

Or is she? For within this tormented narrative one finds Anderson’s conception of family fluid. An Andersonian family is not one with all the proper parts. Indeed is through missing fundamental links that a true family is what is cut and pasted together through the pain of existence. It is this pain that resurrects the family’s emotional nexuses. In this sense, this fantastical movie is simultaneously stands as one of the most genuine.

So now the questions abound. Will Steve finish his mission? Will he find the miraculous Jaguar shark? Will this bonded and reconnected family overcome this grief of a sunken dream to become great once again?

I guess you’ll have to watch the movie. For regardless of the box-office, this is the best selling show. ‘Life Aquatic’ pushes the pains of life onto us, but it always allows us to play in the deep seas of Mars.

---

[1] One can find the critics I have quoted and the figured I have cited at www.rottentomatoes.com . And in attempting to achieve full disclosure, one will indeed find that ‘Life Aquatic’ is a rotten tomato.

[2] http://theedge.bostonherald.com/movieNews/view.bg?articleid=60248

[3] Jane deliriously tells this to Steve while both are being held as hostages by pirates.

[4] One can find this fact on the CD soundtrack to the film. You can view it here if you don’t believe me go here : hollywoodrecords.go.com/lifeaquatic/

[5] This version of events was borrowed from the industrious reporting of the BBC. One can drive into this delightful story and listen to a sample of the song at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/soldonsong/songlibrary/lifeonmars.shtml