INTER-REVIEW:
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

by Jonathan Doyle and Jason Woloski

While generally considered a failure, both critically and commercially, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou has its passionate admirers. In fact, among die-hard fans of writer-director Wes Anderson, the film has already been widely -- but not unanimously -- hailed as a smashing artistic success. Here, two of the film's most enthusiastic fans discuss Anderson's connection to Kubrick, animation, mock interviews, and the other delights of Criterion's new 2-disc special edition.

Jonathan Doyle: Right off the bat, I have to say that This is an Adventure is already one of my favorite making-ofs ever. The interesting thing is that it suggested another way of making The Life Aquatic that could have been even more interesting than the actual film, which I love. There's a far more spontaneous, vital sense of a film crew on a boat in the documentary than there is in the film, itself. I also think Wes Anderson is even more sharp and witty in real life than his writing would suggest.
Jason Woloski: It has a great energy. It's also nice to see older actors work with a younger director. I don't know why but I've always liked the old actor/young filmmaker dynamic.

I like the fact that Wes Anderson wanted Albert Maysles to do his making-of. This suggests he wanted a truthful account of the production, not some bland, promotional puff piece. Did you hear about J-Lo's recent experience with DA Pennebaker?
No.

She (or her people) hired him to make a documentary about the making of her new album. Apparently, her management liked the result but J-Lo killed it because Pennebaker included footage of her screaming fits.
Really? Will the footage become available at some point?

I doubt it. And it's too bad for Pennebaker. He's pushing 80 and could probably use some attention.
What strikes me about Anderson, especially in the Maysles documentary, is that he's not a control freak, he's just very studied. I would argue that, while Tarantino's more anxious, he too seems very studied, as opposed to controlling. This may be what separates this new generation of "childhood seekers" from the Spielbergs and Lucases of the world. I get the sense that the wave of young American filmmakers working right now are studied but also open to lots of crazy ideas coming from everywhere. Spike Jonze also seems to fit into this category.

What do you mean by "studied"? Judging from what I've seen, Tarantino and Spielberg seem like similar presences on the set.
What I mean by studied is not leaving a single stone unturned. Having watched Anderson direct on the extra features, no aspect of his life is un-thought. He's careful about every detail of his life, from his suits to riding a bike to the set, to growing his hair out and cultivating a new look for himself without glasses. This extends into his films, in that he thinks about every detail.

He's a warmer, more appealing Kubrick, in a sense. In fact, he's everything I always wanted Kubrick to be. More human. Less pretentious. Funnier. But with all the craftsmanship and constant innovation of Kubrick. And I don't get the impression that filmmaking is a struggle for Anderson at all.
I resist using the word controlling in relation to Anderson because I associate controlling with anger and being frustrated by things not going right. George Lucas, especially in terms of how the new Star Wars trilogy turned out, strikes me as controlling. He doesn't seem open to a variety of ideas or improvements. He wants things done his way because he wants to be in control. Vincent Gallo would be a more obvious example of someone who's controlling, as opposed to studied.

Another aspect of the documentary that I really liked was the idea of showing multiple takes of a scene, in succession. DVDs never show this but it reveals so much about the actor-director collaboration.
It's also strange how different the finished film looks from how it looks on the making-of documentary. Some of the acting looked atrocious in the making-of and yet it works when properly framed within the visual design of a scene.

It was also kind of funny to see Bill Murray overwhelmed by the decomposing corpse photo in that book.
Definitely. That was a strange moment because he was being funny but he was clearly bothered at the same time. Those kind of moments where multiple aspects of a person's personality are popping up at the same time are fascinating to watch. He seemed out of control in his reaction but he's so used to performing that he made it funny.

I thought it was odd in the documentary that Anderson described the film as both a Bond film and something along the lines of Romancing the Stone. Those seem like really ill-fitting comparisons to me, except in a very peripheral way.
I didn't understand those comparisons either. I can't even imagine taking all of the characters out of The Life Aquatic and replacing them with the cast of Romancing the Stone or a James Bond movie and have it make any sense. The set design is perhaps reminiscent of Sean Connery-era Bond films, in parts, but that's about as far as I'd go with the comparison. Plus, James Bond and Romancing the Stone are tonally completely different movies, from each other and from The Life Aquatic. Since Anderson's movies are tonal as much as they are visual, better comparisons could be made.

What would you compare it to, other than Wes Anderson's previous films? It really reminds me of a movie called Hello Down There that I reviewed a few months ago. The cross-section boat shots are also quite reminiscent of Jerry Lewis' The Ladies' Man.
In terms of 60s action films, John Sturges comes to mind a little bit. Ice Station Zebra, for instance.

Anderson also claims it owes some debt to Day For Night and 8 1/2 but I don't really think that comes through in the movie. Also, there are a few zooms when they steal Goldblum's latte machine that, along with the choreography of the actors, reminds me of M*A*S*H.
One other thing it reminds of is Pixar, if Pixar were slyer and snarkier with their writing. It feels like The Life Aquatic could easily be an animated film. I also find that viewers seem to be more forgiving with haphazardness and randomness in animation. In this sense, Anderson and Baumbach can probably keep the exact same tone and pace they established in The Life Aquatic for their next film, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, and critics will probably love it simply because it's in animated form.

I would love to see an animated film made in the same spirit as The Life Aquatic. Since it's based on a Roald Dahl novel, I doubt The Fantastic Mr. Fox will be adult in the same way but wouldn't it be cool to see an animated movie that deals with sex, drugs, infidelity, pregnancy, etc.? They don't do that much anymore. Speaking of animation, someone also compared The Life Aquatic to Miyazaki's Porco Rosso, which I've still never seen.
Porco Rosso is a great, great comparison. That Anderson is making The Fantastic Mr. Fox next makes a lot of sense because, with his obsessive use of drawings and maps, he seems to have been heading in that direction for a long time.

Since this DVD is ostensibly a Criterion release, distributed by Buena Vista, I was a little taken aback by the obvious influence Buena Vista had on this disc, unlike The Royal Tenenbaums DVD. Whereas Criterion is pretty laid back about legal considerations, this disc has one of those studio warnings about the commentary not reflecting anyone's views. Plus, they beeped out the name Jacques Cousteau every time it was mentioned.
The bleeping threw me for a loop. Initially, I thought there was a glitch on the DVD.

It's funny because they mention Cousteau in the film's credits. I think the lawyers in Hollywood are just desperately trying to find reasons to justify their salaries.
Create a paper trail and hope nobody catches up with it.

A big part of the DVD is the presence of Anderson newcomer Noah Baumbach. I think he's an interesting guy -- I really liked Kicking and Screaming and Mr. Jealousy -- but how do you think he's influenced Anderson?
I'm not sure. I'm really curious about The Squid and the Whale because it will hopefully create a direct contrast between Baumbach's writing and Anderson's. My theory has been that Anderson only needs a writing partner to bounce ideas off of and solidify his existing vision, although I don't want to be unfair to Owen Wilson or Baumbach.

On one hand, I think Baumbach has more of a biting sense of humor than Owen and Wes but, then again, Ned is probably the softest, most lovable, naive character in Wes Anderson history.
It also doesn't help that every feature on the DVD shows Anderson and Baumbach together. Mostly, it feels like Baumbach is setting Anderson up, like he's a second interviewer in most of these situations. What needs to happen now is Owen Wilson and Noah Baumbach need to write a movie together so we can get to the bottom of this.

We spoke before about the questionable authenticity of the Italian interview clip. What were your original thoughts when you saw this?
I was really turned off by Baumbach and just felt that the whole thing was weird. I thought Baumbach was coming across as Anderson's evil doppelganger -- dressed the same, long hair -- but, whereas Anderson was trying to come up with compassionate, humanistic answers, Baumbach was coming across as an angry wannabe prof who just got passed over for tenure. I also thought Baumbach seemed confused. It was all really subtle but this is what I picked up.

I'm pretty sure that the interview is fake for four reasons. For one, the set from the interview is also used in the movie (in a Zissou flashback). The second clue is the ultra-retro opening and closing credits, obviously a Wes Anderson trademark. The third clue is Noah Baumbach. I definitely think he's kidding. I actually thought he was really funny in that interview. The fourth and decisive clue comes in This is an Adventure. When Wes Anderson introduces the Italian interviewer to Bill Murray, he says he's a friend of his from New York. So...I think it's fake. But definitely funny.
Once I learned that the interviewer was a friend of Anderson's, I too became sure it was fake. Still, they did a great job with it. Most of the time, mockumentaries are incredibly lame because the actors or some element of the production design give it away. This held together really well.

Did you notice that Wes Anderson was giving editorial instructions to Criterion during the commentary? And they kept them all in.
I became a little confused by the story Anderson tells about Murray where he tells a homeless guy to "get lost" outside a movie theatre in Manhattan. Anderson was scared Murray wouldn't like the story being told. Is this what you're talking about?

Kind of. But there were a few other instances where he said "okay, let's stop for a minute" or ordered food.
What did you think of the audio-commentary-in-a-restaurant idea?

Something was probably lost, doing it that way. But it's an interesting idea. I'm sure it makes Anderson and Baumbach feel good. A commentary recording with sentimental value.
To be honest, I found the commentary disappointing. It just felt a little flat to me. They couldn't seem to get a nice repartee going.

They seemed far too cautious about appearing pretentious or saying the wrong thing. But it had moments.
I expected crazy stories from the set and lots of anecdotes and behind-the-scenes gossip. But they were really nice to everyone, which makes sense if they ever want to reprise the experience.

I knew Roman Coppola was the second unit director but Anderson seems to credit him with a lot of the best shots. For example, he shot that really impressive POV of the helicopter going down.
Roman Coppola is a really interesting figure. I know very little about him and yet he's intimately tied into hip Hollywood. CQ is a strange movie and he's directed some great videos for The Strokes but he seems permanently destined to be on the sidelines.

But apparently he's an expert on all facets of filmmaking. I think he did special effects work on Bram Stoker's Dracula and he also shoots second unit for his father and sister. I wish he'd make another movie. CQ isn't as good as I want it to be but it's amazingly well-made and he obviously has good taste.
CQ is one of those movies that I desperately wanted to be better, also. It feels like such a tease of a movie. It's obvious that Roman Coppola's talented but the movie falls short. Have you checked out his production company's website? Very cool.

Other than This is an Adventure, I thought the best feature on disc 2 was the intern video journal. It's really well-crafted, funny, and Anderson-esque. A little too cute for its own good, maybe -- Anderson is good at avoiding this -- but interesting, nonetheless.
It's one of those well-put together features that goes down easily.

The text interview with Wes Anderson and his brother is okay but nothing special. I don't think it's mentioned anywhere on the DVD but Eric Anderson has just published "a novel with maps" that sounds vaguely like The Life Aquatic.
What I found interesting about the insert interview with Wes and his brother is how genuinely child-like they both are. Talking of maps being given as Christmas gifts and planning stories out over holiday breaks together seems to confirm the idea that, if there's any lasting angst in Anderson's body-of-work, it's a resentment (from a child's perspective) of having to deal with adult rules and problems. I'm somewhat convinced that Anderson applying so much detail to the worlds he creates is a way of getting back at adults for imposing rules on him.

I like this idea of Wes Anderson as a rebel. He's obviously a very unconventional artist but, by typical rebel standards, he's a very good-natured, amiable rebel.
He's the best kind of rebel because you don't really see him coming.

Exactly. He's a rebel that even other rebels don't recognize.
He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Very expensive Italian sheep's clothing.

Disc 2 also has a great interview with composer Mark Mothersbaugh. I've never really seen him discuss his work with Wes Anderson. The revelations about re-working The Royal Tenenbaums score for The Life Aquatic were fascinating to me.
His work in The Life Aquatic was something else. So what's your overall impression of the extra features on this 2-disc set? What would you have liked to see that wasn't included?

Overall, I don't think I've enjoyed a DVD this much in a while. That may say more about my admiration for the film than the 2-disc set but I think they're both pretty solid. Whereas I was a little disappointed with the supplements on Criterion's release of The Royal Tenenbaums, I felt this set delivered a lot more substance.
I agree with you that the making-of is an instant classic. The commentary could have been stronger and, for some reason, I'd really like to see Anderson and Baumbach do the talk show circuit. I think I'm disappointed that the Italian interview was staged because I want to see a real version of that scenario. That being said, what's on the actual discs is tremendous.