No Hotel Chevalier Short? Bad Darjeeling Limited Reviews?

Posted on Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 by Peter Sciretta

Hotel Chevalier

Update: The short film is available online. Watch it NOW.

We’ve learned that Wes Anderson’s 13-minute short film Hotel Chevalier starring Jason Schartzman and Natalie Portman will not, according to trade reports and Jeff Wells, be showing before The Darjeeling Limited after all. Hotel Chevalier acts as a prequel to The Darjeeling Limited. The short was filmed way before Darjeeling started production, and Anderson is showing the short before Darjeeling film festival screenings. I guess the plan is to release the short on the internet and on the eventual DVD. I’ve heard the short is actually pretty well linked to the film’s main story, and I believe Fox Searchlight should seriously reconsider, and release the film nationwide with the movie (or at least in the major cities or something).

The short takes place in one room of a French hotel (Hotel Chevalier) and serves as “a short epilogue of one heartbreaking history of love and the prologue of the travel told in ‘The Darjeeling Limited.” Hotel Chevalier screened Out of competition in the upcoming Venice Film Festival, and is also scheduled to make an appearance at the New York Film Festival.

And the first Darjeeling Limited reviews are starting to come in, and they don’t look good. The Hollywood Reporter writes:

“The whimsical and insightful charm that Wes Anderson and his filmmaking pals have displayed in such films as “Rushmore” and “The Royal Tenenbaums” curdles ruinously in the Indian sun that shines so brightly in their smug and self-satisfied new film The Darjeeling Limited.”

“But when current affairs are in such a parlous state, it’s almost unforgivable to make a film about stupid American men traveling abroad with not the slightest awareness of or reference to anything that’s going on in the world. The film is overly pleased with itself, and the characters are way too self-absorbed. There’s never a man-eating tiger around when you need one.”

Ouch. For the record, I’m a big fan of Wes Anderson’s earlier work. Bottle Rocket is a great indie comedy, but Rushmore is his perfect film. Many people love The Royal Tenenbaums more, but to me it seemed like the beginning of Anderson’s movement of being quirky just to be quirky. And even then, I still very much enjoyed Tenenbaums and even The Life Aquatic. The Darjeeling Limited looks nothing like his earlier films, aside from the returning cast (Owen and Jason), the soundtrack, and choice of camera angles. Okay, may-be it isn’t far off - but at least the characters, at first glance, seem to be less quirky just to be quirky than his last two films. And I’m still excited to see this flick despite THR’s negative review.

photo credit: NataliePortman.com

Comments 

 

Related Posts

Tags

Action/Adventure, Comedy, Drama, Film Festivals, Fox Searchlight, Short Films, , , ,

  • Billy TwoRivers
    I sure hope they change their mind on that. I was a huge fan of Schwartzman's character tragically wearing Portman's robe throughout the film. I really don't see what the benefit to Anderson and the film would be by the short not being released as part of the feature. There is also this positive (mini) review in Rolling Stone:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/photos/gallery/1621...
  • Chad
    I liked Tenenbaums but found I could only watch it once, and really be into it. Rushmore, on the other hand, I could watch 100 times in a row. Life Aquatic is the same deal, I loved it.

    I'm way stoked for this movie. These critics should know "self-satisfied" when they see it, that's exactly what most movie critics are.
  • Alex
    It's a shame, but I really don't tend to trust film reviewers anymore. They don't tell me if a film is enjoyable, or a good watch. They usually only tell me what's wrong with it, and typically only what's wrong in their world with it. I subscribe to the "I'll believe it when I see it" school of movie-going.
  • Chad
    Dude, one of my good friends told me that Knocked Up was the worst movie she'd ever seen, and to never watch it. So I watched it, laughed my ass off through the entire thing, and I'll never believe another word she says. Not even if it's something that's very obviously true, ie. "It's raining"
  • Chuck
    “But when current affairs are in such a parlous state, it’s almost unforgivable to make a film about stupid American men traveling abroad with not the slightest awareness of or reference to anything that’s going on in the world. The film is overly pleased with itself, and the characters are way too self-absorbed. There’s never a man-eating tiger around when you need one.”

    I am tired of film critics deciding what should and should not be in someone elses movie. It is ridiculous to judge a movie poorly because it does not hit on some current event the critic would like to hear about. And what makes it worse, is if the director/writer did include a statement or message about current affairs, undoubtedly the critic would rip it if it did not fit their political view.

    The critic could be right, and maybe the movie is not good. But a critic should judge the movie based on its own merits, and how well or badly it was made. Not because it does not include something they would like to see in a movie.

    A film is the writer/directors creation, and they should not be obliged to include something just because of the current political environment or happenings in the world. Not every artist should have to consider the war, America's standing with the rest of the world, or whatever political cause this critc above is looking for. When an artist begins to include things just because some non- artist expects it to be there (so they have something to write about), that is when there work becomes formulaic, and loses something in the process.

    I ama huge wes anderson fan, and Rushmore or the Tenenbaums had included commentary on current events and political views, those movies would have been ruined.

    This critic is a wannabe intellectual, who wants a definitive world or political view so they have something to support or rail against in his/her writing about the movie. Wes Anderson movies are probably hard to write about, and i understand many people do not like his style. But then critics, please write about the movies weaknesses or why you do not like the style- not why you are upset about its lack of political message. that was not the purpose of these movies.
  • david
    Right on Chuck. When is it a good time for self examination? Is it not when things are at a crisis?

    Wes Andersons stuff is not for everyone, but this scathing review is not fair. I wonder what films this critic does like? If I cared more about this bitter writer who probably couldn't hack it in film school, perhaps I would do some research.
  • gail
    No, it's not that the film doesn't have a definitive world or political point of view; it's that it has no particular point at all.

    Someone forgot to tell Anderson: whimsical is nice, eccentric is nice, but the dialog has to have some sort of intelligence or humor. Maybe even both. This one is a sort of a deadpan, arch, cutsie -- nothing. Blah. Zero.

    Next time, Wes: Hire a writer.
  • I saw this film when the hotel short played before, and it really added to the film. I just got the soundtrack and it is reminding me of how I much loved this film; appreciate the writing, color, atmosphere and situations that show the sadness in the brothers without depressing us. I started to peruse the critics and they are too critical. Some films, like Anderson's should not be reliant on critics. You have to see the films yourself and decide. brings a whole new meaning to anderson's so-called "self indulgence", doesn't it?
  • i have come from the grave to haunt this article with a post from the future....


    first.... and only....
blog comments powered by Disqus
gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2009 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.