"The Grand Budapest Hotel"

[Stewball]

Not as soul-killingly pure droll as Moonrise Kingdom, since there were some moments of dry humor and sight gags which were worth a few grins here and there. How IMDb gets off putting the "Drama" label on this is beyond me; it comes dangerously close to being silly or even (gasp) a sit-com.

And would someone pleeeeze tell me what a port-wine stain in the shape of Mexico has to do with anything. I feared I might have missed the best gag of the whole movie so I tried desperately to find a connection with Gorbachev or something, but came up empty--who's pic, btw, headlines the Wiki article on portl-wine stains.

[cagedwisdom]

And would someone pleeeeze tell me what a port-wine stain in the shape of Mexico has to do with anything.

Can't be illustrative, descriptive language? He's simply describing what his old flame was like which is perfectly natural in the context, particularly the way the story is told. Why would it have to do with anything?

I didn't love this as much as Moonrise Kingdom, which I consider to be one of the greatest American films ever made, but it's at the very least one of the most enjoyable films I've seen this year so far. Grand Budapest is a little bit too Wes Anderson.

[Stewball]

He's simply describing what his old flame was like which is perfectly natural in the context, particularly the way the story is told. Why would it have to do with anything?

How does a portwine stain of Mexico on her cheek describe what she was like--no matter HOW the story is told?

I didn't love this as much as Moonrise Kingdom, which I consider to be one of the greatest American films ever made, but it's at the very least one of the most enjoyable films I've seen this year so far. Grand Budapest is a little bit too Wes Anderson.

Or a little bit too pretentious???? Please, connect the dots.

[cagedwisdom]

Well, it is the most distinctive feature of her appearance, thus probably a pretty big part of how the narrator remembers her, and a natural thing for him to include to someone when telling the story of her.

[Stewball]

Well, it is the most distinctive feature of her appearance, thus probably a pretty big part of how the narrator remembers her, and a natural thing for him to include to someone when telling the story of her.

IOW, it's sort of a magnified inconsequential footnote, included to sort of suggest that we look for the humor or meaning in it without anything actually being there? If so, and it scares me that I think you're probably right, we need to come up with a term for another kind of humor to go along with dry and droll...dribble humor, maybe? Drool would be too straightforward, and you don't drool pee.

[cagedwisdom]

A magnified footnote is a decent description, really it's just flavor text. But a lot of what the film is about the origins of stories, how they are told and experienced - Tom Wilkinson more or less spells this out in the very first scene.

If you imagine the narration as a written story I don't think you would react to the description of a port wine stain in the shape of Mexico in any other way than adding it to how you picture that character. It's all about how Zero remembers the events and people, and how Jude Law's character pictures them in turn. In that sense throwaway details bear a lot more importance than they would on their own. I rarely care for this kind of framing in film (see Life of Pi), but in Grand Budapest it works, because the story and the telling of the story are interwoven in a meaningful way, rather than being a lazy expositional device.

[Stewball]

A magnified footnote is a decent description,

(magnified inconsequential footnote, to be precise)

really it's just flavor text. But a lot of what the film is about the origins of stories, how they are told and experienced - Tom Wilkinson more or less spells this out in the very first scene.

If you imagine the narration as a written story I don't think you would react to the description of a port wine stain in the shape of Mexico in any other way than adding it to how you picture that character. It's all about how Zero remembers the events and people, and how Jude Law's character pictures them in turn. In that sense throwaway details bear a lot more importance than they would on their own. I rarely care for this kind of framing in film (see Life of Pi), but in Grand Budapest it works, because the story and the telling of the story are interwoven in a meaningful way, rather than being a lazy expositional device.

I guess that's my question, what meaningful way? I mean Alice in Wonderland rambles, but as a vehicle for satire. IOW, it has a point, which I don't see here. For me Life of Pi and GP are polar opposites. They're both beautifully framed, but the latter's aimlessness is off-putting for me.

[cagedwisdom]

Meaningful in that there are two engaging stories in the film. The telling of the story and the story itself, neither of which could really exist without the other and both of which can influence how the other is interpreted. Essentially, it's Tom Wilkinson telling the story of an aging Zero telling the story of Mr Gustave. All of these characters have perspectives of their own, that color the way the story is told to the viewer of the film. The story goes through several filters, each of which leave a distinctive mark on it. In the case of the port wine stain, my theory is that this might be exaggerated, embellishment or simply made up by Tom Wilkinson writing the book of the Grand Budapest, because it is an evocative description for a book. It's kind of speculative, but that's what I like about the framing and the way the story is told, it's very open for interpretation and there's no right answer. We can't know why that detail is included. Perhaps it's an important detail to Zero. Perhaps it's just embellishment.

[Jellysauce]

Or a little bit too pretentious???? Please, connect the dots.

i don't believe wes anderson is pretentious at all. granted, ive only seen his first six films but that's a complaint i have never understood.

[Stewball]

It's kind of speculative, but that's what I like about the framing and the way the story is told, it's very open for interpretation and there's no right answer.

As Christopher Nolan said in response to a reporter who implied that same thing about Inception, he had a specific idea and story in mind and to do less would be to cheat the audience. I couldn't believe a major director had the guts to say that.

We can't know why that detail is included. Perhaps it's an important detail to Zero. Perhaps it's just embellishment.

Pretension. Include something nobody could possibly know in order to keep 'em guessing about a metaphysical answer that doesn't exist--making him look mysterious and knowingly aloof. If there is a definite meaning, then clear the air like Nolan did and say it exists. If nobody can come up with a reasonable explanation for something like that in his movie, and he's not talking, he looses the benefit of the doubt. I could make a movie with 2 hours of black screen and say "it's up to you to decide what it means". Or I could make it colorful and appropriately depressing like Melacholia. "It means whatever you want it to mean"...what a cop out.