Many of cinema's most divisive filmmakers are accused of betraying the story they're trying to tell by utilizing various stylistic affectations. Of course, this is true of all forms of art; those who choose to break away from established formulas are often ridiculed for doing so.
Wes Anderson, whose work includes Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, has suffered much scrutiny for eschewing traditional behaviors and establishing a wholly unique film grammar. His intellectually verbose and stoical comedies are beloved by many and reviled in equal measure. Perhaps what infuriates his detractors even more than Anderson's own work is the work of others whom he inspires. A torrent of films over the past decade have been labeled, sometimes hastily, often appropriately, as "Anderson knock-offs." However, this director is only one of the influential figures in this 'quirky new wave' movement.
Before Anderson, Hal Ashby was churning out similarly deadpan comedies such as Harold And Maude and Terry Zwigoff's Ghost World has certainly influenced this decade since its release back in 2000, resulting in films such as Little Miss Sunshine and Juno. Both were Best Picture nominees thanks in no small part to their quirky characters and thesaurus-ready dialogue, tactics that are beginning to suffer the effects of over-exposure.
There's something different about Matt Aselton's left-of-center romancer, Gigantic. Here's a film that had its premiere at the prestigious Toronto Film Festival, as opposed to the usual spawning ground of the "little-movie-that-could" — Sundance. And, in a sense, I can see why — Aselton's debut may look like an indie comedy, it may sound like your typical Anderson knock-off in its half-mumbled, deadpan delivery, but there's a tonality at work here that feels unfamiliar to me and, dare I say, fresh? For one, Gigantic could only be cursorily described as funny; the laughs are sparse, and usually followed by uncomfortable silences or, on occasion, jarring acts of violence. The hallmarks of a typical, quirky comedy are mostly in place: lots of oddball characters; requisite witty dialogue; and an awkward, young-love relationship at the center which also serves as the film's chief redeeming quality.
Aselton's film is set in New York City, and stars Paul Dano (also credited as an executive producer of the film) as 28-year-old mattress salesman Brian Weathersby, who aspires to one day adopt a baby from China, a dream he's had since he was eight years old. Brian's a very introverted character — his demeanor is the exact opposite of the fire-and-brimstone preacher Dano played in There Will Be Blood, and yet more personable than Dano's Nietzsche-loving mute from Little Miss Sunshine. This is an actor who has proved a willingness to embrace eccentric, moody roles, dating back to his superlative work as a young boy in Michael Cuesta's L.I.E., and in Michael Hoffman's The Emperor's Club. Brian at first appears to be the most even-tempered character Dano has ever given us, but there are undercurrents here that hint at discontent.
Article comments
1 - Jimmy Wack
Bravo! This a great review.
2 - Sam C. Mac
Thanks! I really and truly appreciate that. =)
3 - Mike the bass player
Didn't like it. Too cerebral. We are simple people with simple needs. This film tried too hard.
4 - Sam C. Mac
It does try too hard. And far from everything works, but I tend to applaud ambition at least more often than I do resignation. From the sounds of it, "trying hard" might do you some good. No?
5 - Mike Handy
This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Quirkiness for the sake of quirkiness, without any genuiness or sincerity, is so boring.