wes_anderson_fox

It is unfortunate that the impending release of Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox has been overshadowed to some extent by the controversy over his directing technique for the film. A few weeks ago, word came out that Tristan Oliver, the film’s director of photography, was less than impressed with Anderson’s choice to remain away from set much of the time. The initial storm was minor, but blew up more in the last few days after the LA Times ran an article featuring some incendiary quotes from both the DP and director of animation Mark Gustafson. Anderson responded tersely at first, and now Jeff Wells has got him on video talking about the kerfuffle.

Here’s the background: the film was shot in London, but Anderson evidently spent much of his time in Paris. He would issue direction via phone, email and other communiques. (”The animators would send short digital film files of what they were working on and in return receive detailed e-mail instructions about what to change,” explained the LAT.) And to Oliver, that wasn’t usual.

I think he’s a little sociopathic,” the LAT quotes Oliver saying. “I think he’s a little O.C.D. Contact with people disturbs him. This way, he can spend an entire day locked inside an empty room with a computer. He’s a bit like the Wizard of Oz. Behind the curtain.”

But Anderson now downplays the schism. He says the interview with Oliver is from April, and that when he talked to the paper in June and then checked in with Oliver, the DP said he’d been misquoted. According to Anderson they’ve smoothed things out and it all worked quite well afterward. (Though one would assume the movie was largely done by the time these interviews were taking place and that these arguments would havebeen hashed out months earlier.)

In some ways, Anderson calls the conflict business as usual.

The word that I think gives one pause is ’sociopath’. That is the unexpected one. That’s Tristan, our director of photography. Well, I have another DP I’ve worked with for many years. There are moments in production…where I think he would have unkind words to say about me. Because movies are hard to make, and sometimes you’re making people do things that are the last thing they want to do, and the last way they want to do it.

Here’s the full interview:

  • Aren't a lot of great filmmakers considered "sociopathic"??? Like Stanley Kubrick, for instance...
  • You really wanna make that comparison? Really? You're sure now? Ok.
  • Mike
    Hahahahaha.
  • MIND_DANCER
    Yes. I think "sociopathic" and "OCD" are compliments for an auteur like Wes Anderson. It would be hard to delicately craft a bold meticulous aesthetic without people crediting you with these traits.
  • rainman
    Yet it would be easy to craft a pretentious piece of shit.
  • MIND_DANCER
    Sure.
  • Quanah
    Quite true. Wes doesn't seem to embody the traits of a daft prick...Maybe more of a prickly draft.
  • Peter
    Great filmmakers, yes.
    But we're talking about Wes Anderson here.
  • This is the kind of thing that the public will never fully understand because there is no way we can understand the the working environment on that set. In a way this reminds me from the Bale blow up tape from earlier this year. Film sets are intricate worlds of characters dividing up the power over a single product and each set functions very differently. This is an issue the public can't possibly get to the bottom to without some sort of roundtable with all involved parties speaking candidly. And that simply will not happen.
  • HectorN
    I think all jobs are like this, not just Filming.
  • existenz
    No, I think most of us have to deal with other people in our regular lives. We know when someone has gone off the rails (ala Christian Bale) or is talking shit behind someone's back (the DP Oliver). I work in the film business and none of this stuff is cool or accepted. It's the kind of stuff that makes people hate you, as it would in any other business.

    Wes Anderson was the director, he's the boss, if the DP doesn't like it he could quit. With today's technology you don't have to be in the room to direct a movie like this; it's not like there are actual actors to interact with. It's stop-motion for crying out loud. I doubt Robert Zemeckis is always sitting right there as his digital animators render Christmas Carol.
  • I fail to see anyone rationally saying that he should be on set 100% of the time. What the counter argument here is that he should show up every once in a while to show respect to the crew. Now we as the public don't know how much the guy was on set. This unknown element in this debate is what I have been getting at in these comments, we simply do not know the working structure of this particular set to make a call on this issue. Any debate in these comments on the topic of the debate are vapid and rendered useless.
  • catch42
    Eh, I don't know. It was a 2 year long production, I'm sure it's normal for most of the directing to therefore be done via some kind of communication. It's more the implication that he "never" went to the set during its production that I find odd.

    If true then yes it does seem a bizarre way of making a film. He was only in Paris, it wouldn't have been too much trouble to drop into the studio every 3 or 4 months to give the team support and show his face etc. From the sounds of it he was asking for particularly complex and difficult things, not that there's anything wrong with that, but to not turn up in person and ask them this and see how it's going a a few times during production is odd and poor management of his production team imo. You don't need to have any experience on a set to know that.
  • Tetsuo_Man
    But you're making comparisons of the animation production place to a studio... when they are vastly different things. It's not like they were shooting regularly with actors and everything. This is stop-motion... STOP MOTION. Pause. Shoot a frame. slightly move doll. Pause. Shoot a frame... and then multiply this by a bazillion. They send him the hundred and hundreds of frames and he told them what was up.... makes sense to me. He directed the film....
  • catch42
    Oh and Tercotta, not to drag out the Bale debate again, but I really don't think the argument that the lowly "public" wouldn't understand sits well at all. The problems encountered on a film set are no doubt similar to the ones encountered in any job with a large group of people with conflicting tasks and ideas working together, with different levels of management all attempting to get different things done.

    To suggest it's anything else only re-enforces the idea that film making is some magical process, it's not, it's still a job like any other. And Bale's outburst was far from professional. And certainly not something that that should be tolerated even if it is on a set. A 1 minute tirade I could understand and see as a "reasonable" outburst but to go on for 4/5 minutes was ridiculous.
  • You're right in regard that it is not a magical process. Nor would I insinuate for a second that the public would be considered "lowly". I just meant that this was a two year long process and therefore there must be intricacies of the working relationship only those who were involved truly understand. It is true he should have probably shown his face every couple of months but I am just saying this is a clash of personalities I don't really know. You could easily call it unprofessional, same with the Bale incident. I am just saying these are complex issues that people who were not involved will never fully understand because we were not there.
  • Quanah
    Ugh. I think you completely missed the point Tercotta was making. I also don't think you make a fair comparison when trying to squeeze the concept of an everyday job to working on a film set. I've done both, and the stresses, processes, expectations, limits, ideals, conduct, etc, etc...are completely different. You've attempted to simplify filmmaking into an everyday job and the only thing you got right was that everyday jobs and people working on a film set are generally both human. Other than that, the only other thing you may be correct about is that filmmaking isn't magical--At all! It's brutal and ugly and goes on for an eternity and just when it's over you realize you're out of a job until some other studio or buddy remembers you and gets you another job on a set. The only thing you hope for is that if the film is crap your name is no where in the credits...

    As far as Bale is concerned? Well, in my "regular" job now if someone acted as Bale did for longer than one second they'd be standing in an unemployment line. In fact, 99% of jobs don't tolerate that type of behavior. Only in movies can you act like an asshole and stay employed and still collect your mammoth salary plus your bonus for the film getting into the black. Sigh.
  • yer
    Doesn't surprise me a hipster director like Anderson not being on set. Whatever happened to directors who take the craft seriously? I guess the Tarkovsky's of the world are lone gone. Shame.
  • Brendan McD
    I think Anderson takes his work very seriously, and puts a lot of time and effort and detail into his films. Have you seen his movies?
  • eddymovies
    I'm positive that Wes Anderson puts a lot of time and effort into his films - I mean, that's a requirement for getting a film done. But I feel like we're giving him too much credit. I've seen all his flicks and I just don't think he's matured much, if at all, since Bottle Rocket. Personally, Royal Tennenbaums was one of the hardest movies to sit through in a long while.
  • Tetsuo_Man
    You mean Darjeeling Limited? Now, that was a hard film to watch... and it featured three of my absolute favorite actors as the main characters.

    Tennenbaums was okay, but Life Aquatic came out afterwards and it was great so I wouldn't say he's lost his touch.
  • Also of note is that I take issue with the use of hipster as an insult. At worst you can call hipster a style or even a very loose genre, and while you may not like it you can't write it off like that. It is like criticizing Bay for being an action director or Raimi for being a horror director.
  • Hipster is not a genre. Also, Sam Raimi doesn't just make horror movies while at the same time Michael Bay only makes action movies and Wes Anderson only makes one kind of movie (until now).

    With that said, I think Anderson has taken particular care with the way his movies look. To me he never seemed like a detached director at all.
  • Tetsuo_Man
    Hipsters are people who die in films (see Cloverfield) or complain about pointless things in a house with a guy playing a violin for hours on end (Rachael Getting Married), because I guess, that guy playing a violin had nothing better to do. Calling a person a hipster on a film blog is the equivalent of calling a normal person a fascist.
  • Wait I can't call people fascist?
  • Quanah
    WTF? You last sentence didn't make sense at all. LOL. How about this one instead: Calling a person a hipster on a film blog is the equivalent of calling a normal person a social darwinist, or an apple, or a scarecrow, or an airplane, or a...
  • plagueoftruth
    Can we please put a moratorium on the word 'hipster?'

    Or if not, could you please explain to me what you think that word means? It seems to me to be a way to discount people with different fashion or musical taste than the majority. I'll agree that there is a certain group of people who stand around in the latest fashions trying to look cool (I call them scenesters) but a defining characteristic of those people is shallowness. I don't think Wes Anderson is shallow. He is a talented artist. Is it just because you don't like his clothes? Or is it just because he likes The Kinks and Nico?

    By the way: hipster or not, that has nothing to do with being on set.
  • Hipsters and scenesters are pretty much the same thing aren't they? I pretty much look at them as people who do something or like something because of that particular thing's status (as indie or avant-garde or underground, etc.) and are more than willing to let you know about their unique and eclectic tastes, no matter how many millions of people have identical interests.
  • EbonPinion
    As far as the music scene goes, scenester is a derogatory term, hipster is not inherently bad.

    That being said, I have no idea what the OP intended to mean by the word, as it is clearly an insult to him.
  • Itri12
    How does that in any way make him take his craft less seriously? Being on set doesn't mean you are more "serious". I'm in class for school all the time but I don't really pay attention or get much out of it. Same sort of thing here.
  • existenz
    "The set" on a stop-motion movie? Come on. Insisting that Anderson being on the set of a stop-motion movie is like demanding that James Cameron is always in the digital workstation room as his team of animators render Avatar. Cameron just wouldn't have the time or patience to sit there and watch the grunt work go on; the same goes with Anderson.

    It's one thing if you have actors there, or if you are doing intricate camera movements or trying to capture a lovely scene. But stop-motion is a very lengthy and technical process that does not demand a set presence. In this case watching daily or weekly reels would be enough to do the directing job.
  • Octoberist
    i really think that this Wes Anderson thing has blown out of proportion. I think maybe he's always been difficult but in the end, most directors are like James Cameron. After all, he still works with pretty much the same crew and cast througout his the years (Owen Wilson, Jason Swartzman, Bill Murray, etc)
  • Egger_Buckland
    Maybe working for Anderson sucks. People have been vocal about Henry Selick being difficult to work with. I bet working for Shawn Levy is great.

    I don't see why filmgoers should care though.
  • johndebono
    Lets get this out of the way right now, you can be talented and a nice guy as well. (Chris Nolan, Coen Brothers, Clint Eastwood, Ang Lee, Jason Reitman, Francois Truffaut, Danny Bolye and Darren Aronofsky are all suppose to be amazing to work with.) The reason why we always hear about the talented but dick filmmakers is because the set stories they have are more interesting.
    As for reasons to care, it has to do with personal interest and hollywood mystique. We love the stories of chaos on the film set because it supposedly leads to the best film work possible. Its complete bullshit 92% of the time but sparks the interest none the less.
  • youth4ever
    Interesting way to do a film from the distance. But this not means in my opinion that he is a sociopath. Maybe he want to think in silence about how to correct to the scenes. Maybe when he is in the middle of the action and of the studio movies he can't think and concentrate about the results he wants to have. There are people which they can work with all others and they work alone and they socialize just for simple things.
  • Ashitaka
    It doesn't surprise me that Wes is a bit eccentric and elusive, what the DP is accusing him of being. Look at the characters in his films; the directors will always have a piece of themselves in their characters
  • mike
    I say let him do whatever he wants, and judge him by the product.
  • eddymovies
    I agree. But if the director is barely on set, who's product is it?
  • EbonPinion
    The entire production teams, just like always?
  • Alex
    I love Anderson's work and all, but that's not animation directing. It's just not. If you're directing animation, you've got to be hands on. Which is why animation directors are usually, you know, animators.
  • Anon
    A bigger issue is the fact that any display of animation from this product looks awful. I've never been so disappointed by a film before it's out
  • Mukluk
    I am amazed Anderson is promoting a FAMILY/CHILDREN's film and he is not being taken to task for proudly supporting Polanski via the Swiss Petition.
  • Rick
    Gotta give him credit because it seems like he had full control even if he wasn't there.
  • Rockie
    they could have gotten into a fistfight for all i care.

    i'm still gonna see the final product because it looks great.
  • fatherbradley
    Directing a stop motion movie by email is completely understandable. It's not like they need the Director on set saying..."Action".... (click),,,,,,,"Ok guys, great frame, great frame, let's go again..."
  • Goobity
    You beat me to it. Where's the 'controversy'?
    It's an animated film, what do you expect his level of involvement to be?

    This is just mindless hype for a mediocre looking film. Wes Anderson is the new Tim Burton
  • Tetsuo_Man
    No... I would say Henry Selick (Coraline) who recently departed from the animation studio Laika, is probably the new Burton.
  • existenz
    The question is, what Tim Burton are you guys talking about?

    Edward Scissorhands Burton, or Planet of the Apes Burton?
  • Quanah
    Do you mean in the sense that you can pick either's films out of a crowd by the way they look and the actors in them? Or, do you mean in the sense of the same style of film? One is right and one is wrong.
  • EbonPinion
    I think he was implying that Wes Anderson is becoming the kind of director who does generally the same kind of thing passably well, over and over, and people are still stoked about it.

    Not my personal opinion.
blog comments powered by Disqus