This seems very sad to me. It reminds me of the 'black best friend' trend we are seeing in films and on television. Why must women of color be a second choice for white men? And why is it that, as in the film 'Hitch' with Will Smith, dorky guys date gorgeous women?! I hate to enforce beauty norms, but why do we should be seeing a non- traditional female beauty dating George Clooney in a film!

An interesting analysis, but with one minor quibble: how is one "betrayed" by a filmmaker (the word was used several times in the post and comments)? I can understand disappointment; I myself am disappointed by the sheer repetitiveness of Anderson's themes, music, and visual style.

Isn't one actually betrayed by their prior gushiness or fan-persondom?

I think what you're saying is technically, grammatically true. But I also understand the sentiment behind what she's saying.

Question:

Does the full-length article imply that Thea believes that all interracial/multicultural relationships are a form of cultural appropriation only substantiated if it can be perceived as "radical" or if it makes "a statement"?

I think Thea's full article points out that, although non-white people have featured in all of Anderson's movies, they have only filled the circumscribed roles she described.

My own issue with Anderson's films has long been that the women are almost always opaque, mysterious, and immobile. The men are responsible for all of the movement of the plot, even when there are major female characters. I still enjoy his work, but recognize that he isn't making feminist movies.

When I think about his treatment of non-white characters though, I see that there is an even larger problem. They are mostly there for set-dressing... to enhance the films' quirk factor. You never see inside these characters. You are always looking at them from the outside; looking at them with Anderson's privileged gaze, you might say. The only exception I might make is Danny Glover in Royal Tenenbaums. But even he is not a complete character in the way that Royal Tenenbaum or his sons or Owen Wilson's character are complete.

And why is it that, as in the film 'Hitch' with Will Smith, dorky guys date gorgeous women?! I hate to enforce beauty norms, but why do we should be seeing a non- traditional female beauty dating George Clooney in a film!

Ain't gonna happen. The every important 18-34 male demographic would burn the theater down in protest that their fantasies weren't being played out. Though I will point out that all those "romantic" films are aimed at women, so when you take that into account, what's it saying about the schlubby geek getting the hot girl?

I'm just happy I've never really been a Wes Anderson fan. Though he seems to be playing out that NiceGuy (tm) fantasy of "Your white western women not falling in line? Trade them in for something exotic! Those women really know how to treat men because they're without all that western influence!" It's a wonder he hasn't had any Russian love interests for his male protagonists.

I'll have to think about this trend in Anderson's films, but speaking strictly about Rushmore, I thought of Max's "settling" for Margaret Yang as an attempt to get over a hopeless crush on an unattainable older woman. It seemed to me that she was his second choice because she was a real live girl his own age.

And while I'll concede that Inez in Bottle Rocket was portrayed as exotic and vulnerable, Margaret Yang seemed very mainstream American to me, although I suppose her academic success could be construed as representing an Asian stereotype.

I think something very telling about the Margaret Yang character is that everyone refers to and remembers her as 'Margaret Yang,' never just Margaret. The name that telegraphs her ethnicity is very important for some reason and everyone knows it.

"Ain't gonna happen. The every important 18-34 male demographic would burn the theater down in protest that their fantasies weren't being played out."

I hear this all the time and I don't buy it. Being in that demographic, it has always seemed to me that these shitty movies are aimed at what people think I might like, rather than what I actually like.

Since there's no serious alternative, there's no serious way to gauge the actual interests of the demographic.

I'm sorry but his movies just aren't good enough to warrant a tizzy. Now maybe if anyone bothered to see them...

I hear this all the time and I don't buy it. Being in that demographic, it has always seemed to me that these shitty movies are aimed at what people think I might like, rather than what I actually like.

Tom, you sound like an awesome, open minded individual and I know from working in this business that often times Studios won't go out of the box for fear of what might happen instead of what might actually happen.

Having said that, I'm also up to date on various blogs (gossip and business) and if you've ever had the pleasre to read IMDB comment threads, or Joblo.com, or any other site that's especially aimed at young men you will find a trend toward the "hotter" in of the attractive spectrum among that demograpic. They can be especially brutal to any woman they fell isn't "hot" enough. Someone pointed out in another thread yesterday that for the film The Departed, even though the actress playing the main female lead was a good example of a strong female character, go to the IMDB message board for the film and there's a discussion on whether or not she's fuckable. That's why in Transformers the smart, female computer tech was a, thin, blond hottie instead of just an average looking young woman, like her pudgy male counterparts (then again, that's also Michael Bay).

I know what it's like to feel like you're being passed over in entertainment. I'm a black woman who fucking loves horror films, and yet none of those are really made for me, but for white males.

As a director myself (though for the stage, not film), I see this a little differently. I think zizabean's comment about Margaret Yang's character being a mainstream American regular girl is pretty on the mark, and from that perspective, I appreciate seeing a woman of color cast in that role. I think the relative insignificance or depth of the characters, however, has more to do with the fact that this young director/writer is likely writing about himself and his own philosophical pondering, and his male characters are likely extensions of himself, his close companions, and his mentors or role models in life. I actually appreciate the fact that there is someone creating popular films that explores this type of male existence. I like his directing style and I'm am hopefully that as he matures as an artist he will start to branch out to consider more attentively the female experiences within his stories.

I happen to be a big Wes Anderson fan; he went to my high school and I really relate to many of the things his movies say about life. I don't think its valid to criticize a film maker for not supporting or subverting anyone else's agenda. Does Anderson have to make movies that speak to racial or feminist agendas to make good movies? To be relevant? I enjoy his personal outlook on life and subsequently films that express this view. If his movies were trying to appease feminist audiences by courting them with what is not genuine to his message, I doubt I would enjoy them as much. Anderson fills his world with intelligent and assertive women that satisfy me as a woman AND a feminist.

Could we be a bit more specific as to what is so wrong-headed concerning Inez & Anthony in Bottle Rocket? Anthony hadn't been rejected by anyone--he, in fact, had dumped his girlfriend. And very little of their relationship is idealized. "What are we going to do, live with Jerry?"

I think bubblex, you're missing the main point that Shameless Mag is pointing out is that in a great deal of Anderson's movies he uses either people of color as clowns to the white people, or as secondary romantic interests that are the "exotic" choice. The main white character's relationship ends with his white girlfriend and there's no other white women around to ease his pain? I mean c'mon, this is Anderson's upper middle class we're talking about here, and yet almost each and every time the white male protagonist "falls" for a woman of color to "ease" his pain.

The article isn't saying that Anderson has to bow down to some agenda, she's just calling him out on his shit in how he portrays people of color and I hate to break it to you, but now that his latest film has been released she's not the only one who's stopping to go, "hey, what's up with that?"

Is anyone else here reminded of this:

http://www.feministing.com/archives/007735.html

?

Wait, let's recap vis-a-vis the love interest angle:

Bottle Rocket: N/A, because Luke Wilson wants to be with Inez, who is not exotic unless you consider being a Latina in Texas exotic.

Rushmore: Margaret is not portrayed as exotic, but rather as a typical high schooler. Max's primary love interest was unattainable due to statutory rape laws.

Royal Tenenbaums: n/a. Does Danny Glover fit in here somehow?

The Life Aquatic: n/a.

Darjeeling Limited: Nobody's seen, but I'm sure it has some of the same cultural blind spots as Renoir's The River or David Lean's A Passage To India. Further, was it established that Jason Schwartzmann is only with the girl in the still because he was dumped?

I may not be a fan of the use of Kumar Pallana, but he was acquainted with Wes prior to moviemaking, and his son Dipak also appeared in the first three of his movies (as a doctor, bookstore owner, and teacher).

has anyone seen this??

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/warners-robinoff-gets-in-catfight-with-girls/

Bottle Rocket: N/A, because Luke Wilson wants to be with Inez, who is not exotic unless you consider being a Latina in Texas exotic.

norbizness, i can see where you'd think this wasn't an issue but i've been considered "exotic" because i'm black, i.e. NOT WHITE. But here's a take on it from Jonah Weiner of Slate magazine:

In Bottle Rocket, the Paraguayan housekeeper Ines is a direct precursor to Rita—a service-industry hottie with whom a depressed Anderson hero (in this case, Luke Wilson's Anthony) becomes obsessed. Helping this obsession along is the fact that Ines can barely speak English, making her a convenient projecting screen for Anthony's fantasies about purity and true love. Their romance is sweet, but its subtext is laughable. Anthony's last girlfriend sent him into a psychological tailspin, we learn, when she made a bourgeois proposal: "Over at Elizabeth's beach house, she asked me if I'd rather go water-skiing or lay out. And I realized that not only did I not want to answer that question," Anthony explains, "but I never wanted to answer another water-sports question, or see any of these people again for the rest of my life." So it's barefoot, towel-folding Ines to the emotional rescue.

Rushmore: Margaret is not portrayed as exotic, but rather as a typical high schooler. Max's primary love interest was unattainable due to statutory rape laws.

Even still, Max's primary love interest was a white women and when that didn't work (for whatever reason) he went to an Asian girl, mind you his age, but still Asian.

Royal Tenenbaums: n/a. Does Danny Glover fit in here somehow?

As a black person I was miffed that Glover was put into a kind of step and fetch outfit, however I let it go because all the characters were dressed ridiculously at some point. But again, I'll let shamelessy steal from Jonah Weiner, who puts it better than I:

Mr. Sherman in Royal Tenenbaums, a black accountant who wears bow ties, falls into holes, and meekly endures Gene Hackman's racist jabs—he calls him "Coltrane" and "old black buck," which Anderson plays for laughs

Darjeeling Limited: Nobody's seen, but I'm sure it has some of the same cultural blind spots as Renoir's The River or David Lean's A Passage To India. Further, was it established that Jason Schwartzmann is only with the girl in the still because he was dumped?

Here's the Slate's reviewer take on it (and he's seen it by the way):

A comely stewardess named Rita soon enters, draws a bindi on each brother's forehead, and offers up "sweet lime and savory snacks." Jack decides to interpret this liberally and shortly makes love to her in the bathroom. Rita isn't a character so much as a familiar type: the mysterious, exotic, dark-skinned beauty. Jack hardly exchanges a word with her, but, reeling from a bad breakup, he begins pestering her to leave her Sikh boyfriend, convinced for no good reason that she can turn his life around.

Emphasis obviously mine.
The whole thing is actually a great read, and I apologize cause I don't know how to do links within posts so I'll just give you the whole thing:

http://www.slate.com/id/2174828

Well, I'm not going to respond in detail to the Slate piece, which seems to have a few good points about the Darjeeling Limited. I think the Royal Tenenbaums criticism doesn't seem to remember the same movie (Danny Glover is about to punch Gene Hackman's lights out) as I do, and Luke Wilson's character in Bottle Rocket is mentally ill.

When it comes to filmmakers, I err on the side of not having to explain oneself to the kind of criticism espoused by Slate... the one that seems to equate creator with character. Heaven knows Spike Lee had to waste about 6 years of his life answering the same type of critic.

None of this criticism amounts to a crucifixion of Anderson, and I still enjoy at least three of his movies very much.

When people bring up things like this, that I may not have thought of very much, I like to try to look at their criticism from their perspective and see the ways in which it might illuminate some aspect that I hadn't previously noticed. It gives me a richer understanding of the films if I've tried to leave the shell of my own identity for a bit and engage with someone else's ideas.

The movie still exists. You can go back to it with another lens anytime you like. If you're unable to even consider a critique about race from a non-white author that is interesting.

I just saw the preview for Darjeeling Limited, the long one, with cast interviews.

It seemed really jarring that the woman (I don't remember her name) would sleep with that guy (or his name, either), for completely no reason right after meeting him.

It seems like a total fantasy projection, to have the ability to just walk into a place, and have sex with any attractive woman who happens to be there.

It's more than sexist, it's also shitty story telling.

To clarify, sg: I've got no problem at all with the honest thoughts and reflections of Thea; the Slate piece linked by Ultra seemed like a hatchet job, though. And you're more of a fan than I am; I enjoy about 2.5 of his movies, with Rushmore being the only bona fide 4-star film in his portfolio. Further, when I heard that Kinks song in the Darjeeling trailer, I immediately had no desire to see it.

I posted this to Thea's original thread, but I wanted to say it here as well, I hope it's not to long but I wanted to address in detail, I also added a postscript that replies to certain arguments here. Also I haven't seen Darjeeling yet, but my guess is most of us haven't so it's hard to argue details:

I completely understand the bloggers reaction to Anderson's presentation of PofC, however I think their reading of the sex/race issue is a tad surface. If anything, Anderson's guilty of being lazy rather than bigoted.

First, Anderson's mode of storytelling often hinges on the presentation of distinctly "modernist" characters through "postmodern" storytelling. Royal Tenenbaum is a "caricature" in so much as a character taken out of the past, complete with the trappings of the "modern man," in this case colonial acquisition, Pagoda. Their relationship is not meant as a good thing. Part of the whole point of Royal Tenenbaum's character is to portray the sickness Royal suffers from his greed and aquisitivness, again elements of the "modern man." To a lesser degree, Eli Cash also suffers, trying to define his self by embracing a romanticized ideal of native american culture because he has no identity of his own. Are Pagoda, or the native american trappings decorating Eli Cash's apartment authentically voiced, or descriptive? No, they're fake, slightly unnerving and provide little solace to Royal or Eli. But that's the point.

Margaret in Rushmore and the latina maid (sorry, it's been a while since I've seen Bottlerocket) seem less the exotic, sexualized, colonized bodies, than simply the "other." In Anderson's case he opts to use PofC in sort of a lazy way to further emphasize their removal from the dysfunctional worlds that so twist his protagonists. The Luke Wilson/Schwartzman characters are hardly exploitative in the sense that the poster implies, except maybe in that they can be read as embracing alien sexuality as lesser alternative to that of their own race. However, I don't read this into the films.

Anderson certainly does take a certain joy in the aesthetics of the "other" or as the blogger and commenters note, post-colonial landscapes and their inhabitants. Yet, I can't condemn him completely because of the naivete and genuine affection with which he approaches the subject matter, coupled with his occasional self-aware admission that this is a fictionalized retrospective of a modernist world long past. Rather, I think he hopes to mine for archetypes rather than stereotypes, even if he ocasionaly falls short.

PS: About the class issue, yes Anderson's use of affluent, upper-middle class males has been noted before. However, these are not stereotypical representations of class, rather than frameworks within which the filmmaker may ask relevant questions to himself, and of course create extravagant aesthetic tableaux. The real class issues being sorted out here are white-to-white, not white-to-PofC (see Bottlerocket and Rushmore for the best examples of this).

Phew, I late getting in on this discussion. Thanks Feministing for the shout-out!

AnytheGr8: no I don't believe that all interracial/multiracial relationships are a form of cultural appropriation. This may be somewhat irrelevant but I'm actually the product of an interracial relationship - which is perhaps why representations of interracial sex/love distress me - more often than not those r'ships are trivialised and exoticised. My issue is more with representation of interraciality, especially by white non-anti-racist artists, than with the r'ships themselves.

Tom - I agree with you in the sense that art/film/tv/etc that is made for men is for men as much as Cosmo Magazine is for women - both rest on sexist, harmful and reductive ideas of what men and women are supposed to want. I think that cinema that is targeted towards men, and insinuates that all men should objectify women, really like sports and express emotions primarily through violence, do as much harm to men as to women. And anyone else, for that matter.

And why is it that, as in the film 'Hitch' with Will Smith, dorky guys date gorgeous women?!

I just wanted to comment on the fact that this is something that I see all the time at work, on campus, and among my friends. Guys can almost always land an awesome, beautiful girl who is out of their league. Girls, not so much. It's a sad double standard. That's been my personal experience, anyway. I'm sure lots of you know lots of equally attractive couples or couples wherein the guy is more traditionally a "catch."

This criticism seems pretty weak to me. I see all this criticism over Inez (a truly interesting take on an immigrant to the United States if you care to give her more than a cursory glance), Margaret Yang (the antithesis of the "smart Asian" stereotype when you realize she made up all her research and hangs around with the equivalent of the school goofball), and Henry Sherman (a sound, honest man who is meticulate and only recently coming out of his shell after the loss of his first wife to stomach cancer), and it doesn't even make sense to me. So his characters that happen to be minorities aren't perfect? Would it be better if they were? It seems kind of sad that we're at the point where someone can't have minorities in his movies and not present them as only strong, powerful, and smart. Each and every character he presents is very human, and that means flaws are included.

On a side note, where's the criticism for the character of Dudley in The Royal Tenenbaums? You would think a fake mental illness would be a little more offensive, but apparently there are no good watchdog groups for them.

Seeing the film made me feel better about it... it isn't reveling in the other-ness of the setting, but rather putting a strong focus on the other-ness of these characters and the absurdity of their attempt to buy depth. The film mocks the brothers' overt attempt at cultural appropriation, making it absolutely clear that they are making themselves ridiculous.

I do still wish that Anderson was as comfortable with women or characters outside of his own culture, but his films are still more interesting to me than most of what gets released. So I guess I'll deal.

I just saw The Darjeeling Limited and I disagree with the Shameless Mag claim that Rita is an example of the stereotype of an overly sexualized woman of color. On the contrary, I got the feeling that the reason she slept with Jack (and so quickly) is basically out of boredom. Though Anderson cuts from Jack inviting her to smoke a cigarette to them making out and eventually having sex without showing how they got from the former to the latter, there are still noticable implications of Rita's boredom throughout the movie - starting with the fact that she explicitly states her desire to leave the train and the life she leads while working on it (Rita's boyfriend is the head steward, the boyfriend she breaks up with after sleeping with Jack and then eventually turning him down).

She also definitely knows that Jack was just a hook-up and he's kind of dumb (a trait present in many Anderson protagonist). When they're leaving the compartment, he tries to pull her out too and she reminds him that the point of them leaving separately is so no one could see them, she looks exasperated at him - her expression basically screams "Damn! I can't believe I just fucked this idiot." She gives another look similar to that in the scene right before the Whitman brothers get kicked off the train, when Jack runs into the dining car - her look there says "Here comes this fool embarrassing me again."

But the ultimate proof of my assessment is the line Jack says to Rita as the Whitman brothers get kicked off the train: "Thank you for using me." He knows (or, more likely, eventually figures out) that she only got with him because she was looking for something to break up the monotony of her life, possibly also to use this fling as an excuse to break up with her boyfriend (though she was probably going to end the relationship regardless of whether or not she ever even met Jack). That was the kicker for me.