Saturday, January 22, 2005
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)
Director: Wes Anderson
* Warning * The following analysis discusses the entire film - including the ending.
The reason this film exists is to delight in watching Bill Murray. Actually, I am sure Wes Anderson would not agree as he has labored to create an entire world in The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou, inhabited by singular characters interacting in a very busy plot. (Sofia Coppola got it right in Lost in Translation where she placed Murray within a sparse canvas and allowed us to delight in Murray almost distraction free, creating a much better film as a result.) So let me back up and say watching Bill Murray is the primary reason I would give to see The Life Aquatic, and even if it were the only reason, it would be enough.
There is much plot in this film, too much in fact, and very little of any consequence. To summarize, as the film opens Murray’s character, Steve Zissou, is taking questions before an audience who has just watched his latest nature documentary. We soon learn that Zissou has had a storied past of filmmaking and celebrity – sort of a Jacque Cousteau rock star. But for the past decade his popularity and film making ability have been fading, along with his bank account and neglected ship. The rest of the film is the cursed adventure of the making of his next, and perhaps final documentary. The project’s purpose? To find and kill the Jaguar Shark that killed his long time partner. “What scientific purpose would killing the shark serve”, asks a staid biologist from the audience? After much thought Zissou comes back with, in matter-of-fact deadpan, “Revenge”. The moment is hilarious and representative of what’s in store. Which is a black comedy of disaster after disaster made light and hilarious, by Murray’s apathetic, listless deadpan. The move is 1/3 Jaws, 1/3 Fargo, and 1/3 The Big Lubowski (with a dash of absurdist Rambo thrown in during the boat hijacking scene.)
You wonder why Anderson went to all the trouble of creating this fat plot (I have not mentioned Owen Wilson as Zissou’s (possible) abandon son, Cate Blanchette as the disillusioned reporter, or Angelica Houston as the feed-up lover). Why create this singular world, down to such fine details as inventing spectacular aquatic species? What is most worthy in Life Aquatic are throw away moments between the band of quirky characters: William Dafoe and his insane allegiance to Zissou and The Team, Goldblum as Alistair Hennessey, Murray’s arch-rival and foil, sitting on his perfect ship in white robe and flip flops talking with Zissou about how much it will cost to save his ship and crew, the banker stooge telling Goldblum we “fucking stole it” when asked about why they have his espresso machine. The characters are fantastic, unique, and so damn funny. And Anderson has set-up interactions which perfectly exploit their quirkiness.
But in the end Life Aquatic is too adrift in its own insular creativity to speak outside its frame. You laugh uproariously but are not touched; no thoughts are provoked. Is this a failing in an absurd comedy? Yes, but only because it seems Anderson intended more. (It would be ridiculous to level this criticism at purposely shallow (though hilarious) films such as Airplane or the Naked Gun.) But in Life Aquatic it seems the final scenes are intended to be emotionally cathartic for our protagonist, Zissou, - to make us realize Zissou has an empathetic emotional core (triggered by the death of his (possible) son) beyond what his deadpan suggested; however, it didn’t work.
Ultimately it is a film where the characters win (with the possible exception of Wilson’s) and the story fails.
Should you see it? Yes indeed, to delight in Bill Murray.
