The French Dispatch (2021)

[Adam Lenhardt]

Title: The French Dispatch

Genre: Comedy, Romance, Drama

Director: Wes Anderson

Cast: Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright, Adrien Brody, Benicio del Toro, Owen Wilson, Steve Park, Léa Seydoux, Timothée Chalamet, Lyna Khoudri, Mathieu Amalric, Liev Schreiber, Elisabeth Moss, Edward Norton, Willem Dafoe, Lois Smith, Saoirse Ronan, Christoph Waltz, Cécile de France, Guillaume Gallienne, Jason Schwartzman, Tony Revolori, Rupert Friend, Henry Winkler, Bob Balaban, Hippolyte Girardot, Anjelica Huston, Denis Ménochet, Kate Winslet, Alex Lawther, Vincent Lacoste, Benjamin Lavernhe, Vincent Macaigne, Félix Moati, Wallace Wolodarsky, Fisher Stevens, Griffin Dunne

Release: 2020-07-24

Runtime: 108

Plot: A love letter to journalists set at an outpost of an American newspaper in post-war 20th-century Paris that centers on three storylines.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Excited to see that Bill Murray has a significant role, after smaller roles since The Life Aquatic.

 

[TravisR]

Can't wait!

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I have been wondering when where and how this will be released.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Has anyone else seen this yet?

I think Wes Anderson has made some great films. Isle of Dogs is my favorite by a considerable margin, followed by Fantastic Mr. Fox. He has also made other films that are technically well-crafted but are not for me. The Grand Budapest Hotel, for all of its lush design and expert craftsmanship, left me emotionally cold. I remember thinking parts of Moonrise Kingdom were good, but it didn't leave much of an impression on me after I saw it. So, although I respect Anderson's obvious talent, I don't worship at his alter or anything. I know when I buy a ticket to an Anderson film that I will at the very least admire the film, but he is less consistent at resonating with me than for some people. All that being said, I'm happy to say I liked this one as a zany offbeat piece of escapism. But I didn't have a huge emotional response to it. It presents quirkiness at the expense of character development., but it was just weird enough to be fun.

I went tonight at my arthouse and it was a sold out show (up to their 50% maximum capacity restrictions) which was great. I know arthouses have been slower to recover from the pandemic because older audiences have been shown to be more hesitant about returning to the theater. I'm glad this movie is coming along when arthouses need a big hit. Mine recently instituted a vaccine mandate to enter the building, and it was nice to go be with a crowd that I know was as safe as possible.

I was surprised that it is not really a traditional movie with a singular narrative throughline. The running time is divided into three distinct segments with a different cast and story in each. So it feels more like three shorts strung together by a wraparound thread involving the titular magazine which Bill Murray runs. I don't want to say anything else until more people have seen it, but it is very possible that you might have different opinions on each of the there segments. I think linking them more significantly would have helped the experience in totality. But overall I had fun with it and would recommend it for those interested.

On a personal note, I couldn't help but think back to the last time I went to a theater for a Wes Anderson movie. Coincidentally, I happened to be on vacation in California during the opening weekend of Isle of Dogs and I was able to see it on the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. Technically, the dome still exists; it's a historical landmark, so nobody is going to tear it down. But due to the pandemic, it is no longer operational because the entire ArcLight chain has closed their doors permanently. Isle of Dogs was the first and only film I got to see there, and I am so glad my vacation dates overlapped with it. My arthouse here is the best place locally to see The French Dispatch, but man, seeing Isle of Dogs at the Dome was something else entirely. It is really too bad that it isn't operational anymore.

 

[JoeStemme]

Yes, it's eccentric. Yes, it has a witty premise. But, the whole film is summarized in the prologue. After that, it's a long slog through a cast of eccentric characters who "act funny", say "funny" things, and are placed in "funny" situations. Unfortunately, it's just bizarre for bizarre's sake. Wes Anderson has become a self-parody with situations and characterizations so "Wes Anderson-like" that they exist only in his films' world, with little or no connection to anything or anybody else (except for his cadre of self-appointed hipsters who "get" the humor. I "get" the humor, I just don't find there to be any "there" there).
.
.
.

NOTE: Nope, haven't seen FRENCH DISPATCH yet. This is my review for 2001's THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS*. And, judging from the reviews and comments, this review still applies, just like it has for ALL of Wes Anderson's films post-RUSHMORE**. When even many of Anderson's fans say it's too cloying for THEM, they why bother seeing it in a theater? I may catch it later on streaming, but, it's doubtful the review will have to edited much.

* It is slightly edited to make it up to date
** I do make an exception for Wes' animated films. At least there, he cuts to the chase and makes all the characters actual cartoons

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Yes, it's eccentric. Yes, it has a witty premise. But, the whole film is summarized in the prologue. After that, it's a long slog through a cast of eccentric characters who "act funny", say "funny" things, and are placed in "funny" situations. Unfortunately, it's just bizarre for bizarre's sake. Wes Anderson has become a self-parody with situations and characterizations so "Wes Anderson-like" that they exist only in his films' world, with little or no connection to anything or anybody else (except for his cadre of self-appointed hipsters who "get" the humor. I "get" the humor, I just don't find there to be any "there" there).
.
.
.

NOTE: Nope, haven't seen FRENCH DISPATCH yet. This is my review for 2001's THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS*. And, judging from the reviews and comments, this review still applies, just like it has for ALL of Wes Anderson's films post-RUSHMORE**. When even many of Anderson's fans say it's too cloying for THEM, they why bother seeing it in a theater? I may catch it later on streaming, but, it's doubtful the review will have to edited much.

* It is slightly edited to make it up to date
** I do make an exception for Wes' animated films. At least there, he cuts to the chase and makes all the characters actual cartoons

I am a fan and so enjoy his style. I would not argue his films are mostly style but I am OK with that. I find them fun. I do think because he has such a precious doll house approach he is sort of easy to either criticize or make fun of. However, it is also what makes his catalog unique and brings people back to see them. You know when you are watching a Wes Anderson picture like you know when you are watching a Jacques Tati picture. My take anyway.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

What is sort of cool as well is this picture was delayed for so long Wes has already wrapped shooting and is in post on his next. Which has an amazing cast of some of his stock players and people like Tom Hanks, Scarlett Johansson, Margot Robbie, and Matt Dillon.

 

[Edwin-S]

I don't see a need to see this in a theatre, but I'll most likely give it watch when if I streams on a service that I have a subscription to.

I find his animated films have the most draw for me to watch them again; however, I always find his use of the camera, framing and colour in his films worthy of at least one watch. He definitely has a style that cannot be mistaken for anyone else.

 

[benbess]

As with his other films, it's quite elaborate and stylized. It's sometimes amusing, but rarely from my pov truly funny. Again, the mise en scene though is quite impressive and at time almost jaw dropping. I kind wish that WA explored one longer and more dramatic story set in France, perhaps dealing with some of the actual writers from the New Yorker.

 

[Ross Gowland]

I saw it yesterday and thought it was excellent, often breathtakingly so. I’d recommend seeing it on a big screen to see all the wonderful details.

The cast is great and, in particular, Tilda Swinton is stunning.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Yes, it's eccentric. Yes, it has a witty premise. But, the whole film is summarized in the prologue. After that, it's a long slog through a cast of eccentric characters who "act funny", say "funny" things, and are placed in "funny" situations. Unfortunately, it's just bizarre for bizarre's sake. Wes Anderson has become a self-parody with situations and characterizations so "Wes Anderson-like" that they exist only in his films' world, with little or no connection to anything or anybody else (except for his cadre of self-appointed hipsters who "get" the humor. I "get" the humor, I just don't find there to be any "there" there).
.
.
.

NOTE: Nope, haven't seen FRENCH DISPATCH yet. This is my review for 2001's THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS*. And, judging from the reviews and comments, this review still applies, just like it has for ALL of Wes Anderson's films post-RUSHMORE**. When even many of Anderson's fans say it's too cloying for THEM, they why bother seeing it in a theater? I may catch it later on streaming, but, it's doubtful the review will have to edited much.

* It is slightly edited to make it up to date
** I do make an exception for Wes' animated films. At least there, he cuts to the chase and makes all the characters actual cartoons

I sometimes think many of Bob Dylan's actions exist as an attempt to see how far he can push what his core audience will defend.

The Dylan obsessives regularly claim everything Bob does is genius, and I wonder if he knows that and makes intentionally oddball choices that he knows are ridiculous just to see if they'll continue to yell "brilliant!" every time.

I kinda wonder the same about Anderson. He gets more and more "Wes Anderson" as the years pass, and sometimes it feels like a big performance art experiment.

"Can I go too far and alienate my fans? Let's see"!

I like WA's movies more than you, as he didn't really start to lose me until the badly flawed "Moonrise Kingdom".

But man, does the whimsical "Wes Anderson style" start to seem oppressive.

I think his movies work best when actors don't quite succumb to the deadpan "Wes Anderson School of Acting".

Hackman tried to create a real character in "Tenanbaums", and he worked wonders.

Fiennes' played a cartoon in "Budapest", but he did so in such a gleeful manner that it worked.

I guess Wes figures that he's found his niche and doesn't want to tamper with it, but it'd be nice to see a little more variation in his movies.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

As with his other films, it's quite elaborate and stylized. It's sometimes amusing, but rarely from my pov truly funny. Again, the mise en scene though is quite impressive and at time almost jaw dropping. I kind wish that WA explored one longer and more dramatic story set in France, perhaps dealing with some of the actual writers from the New Yorker.

I'm not sure WA ever aims for guffaws. His movies lack much you'd call "laugh out loud" funny.

As you note, they're more amusing, but you're not gonna roll in the aisles!

 

[JoeStemme]

For me, it's not a matter of how stylish or 'whimsical' Wes' live action films are, but, how empty. There's no heart. No soul. Just asides and anecdotes. It's not about the main text, it's footnotes and parentheticals.

And, the sad part is that Wes specifically namechecks filmmakers like Kurosawa, Satyajit Ray, Welles and, especially, Truffuat as his favorite Directors. Unfortunately, all he has taken from them is their style - never their humanity.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I sometimes think many of Bob Dylan's actions exist as an attempt to see how far he can push what his core audience will defend.

The Dylan obsessives regularly claim everything Bob does is genius, and I wonder if he knows that and makes intentionally oddball choices that he knows are ridiculous just to see if they'll continue to yell "brilliant!" every time.

I kinda wonder the same about Anderson. He gets more and more "Wes Anderson" as the years pass, and sometimes it feels like a big performance art experiment.

"Can I go too far and alienate my fans? Let's see"!

I like WA's movies more than you, as he didn't really start to lose me until the badly flawed "Moonrise Kingdom".

But man, does the whimsical "Wes Anderson style" start to seem oppressive.

I think his movies work best when actors don't quite succumb to the deadpan "Wes Anderson School of Acting".

Hackman tried to create a real character in "Tenanbaums", and he worked wonders.

Fiennes' played a cartoon in "Budapest", but he did so in such a gleeful manner that it worked.

I guess Wes figures that he's found his niche and doesn't want to tamper with it, but it'd be nice to see a little more variation in his movies.

This is a wonderful comparison and not one I would have made. I think Dylan is most definitely screwing with people at times as that is his way. He is very much self aware and looks at things with this idea there is Bob Dylan and there is him. Because he is wont to do that he will invent things for Bob Dylan to do to amuse himself. Dylan has done this for so long he is pretty much an expert at it and it now probably just happens whether he is putting effort into it or not.

I don't think Wes is screwing with people but he is amusing himself. He has established a style that he now works within and I am sure he enjoys it but it also has become his brand. Meaning I feel like he may just be promoting his brand so that it continues to thrive.

I know what keeps me going back to his pictures is I am going to be immersed in one of his dollhouse worlds with his quirky deadpan characters.

You've got a point with Hackman. He was such an amazing actor that set down into the tightly structured realm of an Andersonville he seemed to be almost smashing his way out...and that turned into something wonderful. As if the dollhouse just could not contain Hackman's energy. If I recall, Hackman did not enjoy that shoot but man he is awesome in the picture. He does not do any sort of standard Anderson line deliveries. It's pretty much like who let this guy loose in here? Man, I miss Hackman.

I think sort of what happened is Anderson's style has become so established that now he almost can't help working in it. So now part of the fun is to see what happens when new actors are dropped into his dollhouse with his stock players. Tom Hanks is a huge get in this regard for his next picture. Hanks is no Hackman but it will be interesting to see what he does.

I understand why you would call it oppressive as everything is so carefully structured but I don't think he should or would alter his style. What I think works to bring energy to it is to drop an actor or actors into the dollhouse that act as if they do not know they are in it. Essentially, the Hackman approach to Wes Anderson.

The difference between Hackman and Fiennes in terms of performance is Fiennes seems to know he is in the dollhouse where Hackman seems to have no idea he is. That totally changes the feel of the performance.

 

[joshEH]

You've got a point with Hackman. He was such an amazing actor that set down into the tightly structured realm of an Andersonville he seemed to be almost smashing his way out...and that turned into something wonderful. As if the dollhouse just could not contain Hackman's energy. If I recall, Hackman did not enjoy that shoot but man he is awesome in the picture. He does not do any sort of standard Anderson line deliveries. It's pretty much like who let this guy loose in here? Man, I miss Hackman.

I can actually speak to that last point, at least anecdotally:

In the early spring of 2001, I was back in my hometown of Danville, Illinois for a family-related reason, which also happens to be Gene Hackman's hometown (we both attended the same high school, albeit decades apart). When we were eating out at a local buffet-restaurant (right across the parking lot from the Walmart), who should walk in but none other than Hackman himself -- I've met the guy a few times over the years (he's regularly done fundraising-work both for the school district and other city projects like a theater-restoration), and he recognized me.

We got to chatting briefly in the lobby near the cash register (I didn't want to be obnoxious and keep him from his business, but he was totally cool), and he mentioned that he'd literally just wrapped shooting on Wes Anderson's new film only (IIRC) two days previously (The Royal Tenenbaums), and had flown in from New York, and also that it was one of the most favorite movie-making experiences of his life.

Now, I guess he could've been talking it up or whatever, but there was a genuine gleam and twinkle in his eye when he said this to me, and I could sense that he was seriously enthused by the movie. And then the film came out, and the rest is history. But I've always regretted that we've never gotten a second Hackman/Anderson-pairing since then (although maybe his 2004 retirement after Welcome to Mooseport just a couple years later ended things permanently in his eyes).

 

[TravisR]

I can see how Anderson's style doesn't appeal to everyone. Personally, I'm a big fan of it but in a world where big franchise movies (even ones I like) only have a set 'house style' rather than letting an individual director's style shine through, I'm glad that there's a guy out there whose vision is allowed to take center stage. You can't mistake an Anderson movie for anyone else's picture and there's only a handful of people that I can say that about today.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I can actually speak to that last point, at least anecdotally:

In the early spring of 2001, I was back in my hometown of Danville, Illinois for a family-related reason, which also happens to be Gene Hackman's hometown (we both attended the same high school, albeit decades apart). When we were eating out at a local buffet-restaurant, who should walk in but none other than Hackman himself -- I've met the guy a few times over the years (he's regularly done fundraising-work both for the school district and other city projects like a theater-restoration), and he recognized me.

We got to chatting briefly (I didn't want to be obnoxious and keep him from his business, but he was totally cool), and he mentioned that he'd literally just wrapped shooting on Wes Anderson's new film only (IIRC) two days previously (The Royal Tenenbaums), and had flown in from New York, and also that it was one of the most favorite movie-making experiences of his life.

Now, I guess he could've been talking it up or whatever, but there was a genuine gleam and twinkle in his eye when he said this to me, and I could sense that he was seriously enthused by the movie. And then the film came out, and the rest is history. But I've always regretted that we've never gotten a second Hackman/Anderson-pairing since then (although maybe his 2004 retirement after Welcome to Mooseport just a couple years later ended things permanently in his eyes).

Awesome story. I've never met Hackman but he is, in my opinion, one of the all time greatest motion picture actors in the history of the medium. It never really mattered what he was in, you could count on him being amazing in it. Basically, I would recommend anybody that wants to act on screen watch a whole bunch of Gene Hackman pictures. Honestly, there is nobody in his league acting today. The art and craft he brought to his performances was just flat out stunning. He was totally natural in front of a camera. You could never catch him acting. When he was in front of the camera he commanded the screen and your attention.

The part in Anderson's picture was a great one for him. Wonderfully subversive and he gave off that wild electricity whenever he was on screen. He certainly looks like he is enjoying himself creating that character. It's great to hear that he told you he enjoyed doing it.

 

[joshEH]

Awesome story. I've never met Hackman but he is, in my opinion, one of the all time greatest motion picture actors in the history of the medium. It never really mattered what he was in, you could count on him being amazing in it. Basically, I would recommend anybody that wants to act on screen watch a whole bunch of Gene Hackman pictures. Honestly, there is nobody in his league acting today. The art and craft he brought to his performances was just flat out stunning. He was totally natural in front of a camera. You could never catch him acting. When he was in front of the camera he commanded the screen and your attention.

The part in Anderson's picture was a great one for him. Wonderfully subversive and he gave off that wild electricity whenever he was on screen. He certainly looks like he is enjoying himself creating that character. It's great to hear that he told you he enjoyed doing it.

Yeah, Hackman has always been a real mensch -- he'd team up with other famous alums from our shared high school (Dick and Jerry Van Dyke, Donald O'Connor, Bobby Short, etc.) and they'd do group fundraisers together every now and then for the district and/or community; I first met him during my sophomore year (the fall of '92, right after Unforgiven hit theaters) at a reception when one of these galas took place at our school, and a few more times since.

I don't know if I'd ever lead with this today, but as a dumb, immature 15-and-a-half-year-old, I marched right up to him and asked: "Did you ever pick your feet in Poughkeepsie?" Gene had the biggest grin on his face just seconds later.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Yeah, Hackman has always been a real mensch -- he'd team up with other famous alums from our shared high school (Dick and Jerry Van Dyke, Donald O'Connor, Bobby Short, etc.) and they'd do group fundraisers together every now and then for the district and/or community; I first met him during my sophomore year (the fall of '92, right after Unforgiven came out) at a reception when one of these galas took place at our school, and a few more times since.

I don't know if I'd ever lead with this today, but as a dumb, immature 15-and-a-half-year-old, I marched right up to him and asked: "Did you ever pick your feet in Poughkeepsie?" Gene had the biggest grin on his face just seconds later.

Ha, yeah I think at 15 you could get away with that and probably Hackman loved that a 15 year old kid was quoting that line at him. I've got to meet some of the great actors I love, Nicholson and Pacino for example, never have I quoted a line at them. In fact with Nicholson and Pacino I was surprised to meet them so I had nothing really in my head to say to them.

I really miss Hackman as an actor. He was a gift. It is wonderful that you met him on those occasions and had those opportunities to interact with him. Hackman always amazed me in his ability to play anything, tough, funny, weak, goofy, everyman, oddball, romantic, lead actor, character actor, you could throw anything at him and he was going to deliver something nobody else could touch.

I mean I love Nicholson (he'd be fun in an Andeson picture) but as the years went on Jack was hired to be Jack. Hackman was always the character. He never seemed to be phoning it in nor riffing on himself. Just an amazing ability to bring a character to life.