The film focuses on a vast number of characters, portrayed by whatever big-league actor Wes Anderson can get his hands on: Bill Murray, Gwenyth Paltrow, Owen Wilson, just to name a few. The film has around 10 characters that you have to think about and every one of them feels devoid of personality and is extremely dry. Not that I think any of these people are bad actors, it's just that the direction and writing forces them to assume this persona of introvertal cynicism which may as well throw their talent out the window - everybody acts the same. I'll discuss this shortly.
The characters are numerous, and tend to fit into neat little slots of traditional plot stereotypes. The three Tenenbaum Children, notably the stuck-up businessman, torchered poet, and failed sportsman are idly left to wander about the story by themselves. Characters rarely interact. Instead, we are left to observe their individual struggles, and what they are personally experiencing. This could be an interesting experiment, unfortunately it entirely falls flat due to the fact that we are not given any opportunity to actually sympathise or understand what the characters are going through, because we obviously don't know what they're like because we haven't seen them interact. We don't get to see them behave in situations with each other - we know exactly what they are going to do in the future and so there are almost no surprises. I would like to say that the film was predictable, but how can you predict things happening if there's no character to base them on in the first place? What we see instead is a dull cinematography-porn experiment.
Wes Anderson goes for this thing where he forces the characters to behave shy, awkward, silently etc. I can assume that this is part of some scheme by which we will sympathise with them more because they'll feel more real, and act like more lifelike people. They don't. The whole thing feels like a bad children's play instead. Whether or not it is designed to deliberately clash with the bright and colourful settings, I cannot say, but I can tell you that it fails at funny moments, sad moments, happy moments, and gives the entire film a very monotone atmosphere. I feel that any arguments against this can be readily cast away when the characters are told to act, and even then the tone falls very flat due to the fact that we haven't been allowed to engage with the characters to begin with.
I should discuss the cinematography. If you are in any way familiar with Wes Anderson you'll know the thing that he does. He goes for a very french look, coupled with an awkward fetish for colourful, charming buildings and paintings, as well as elements of childhood, fantasy and so on. Think Amélie in New England. Symmetry is a common one. Whereas I would assume this would have something to do with the fact that we humans have an aptitude for seeing symmetry in things, it does the opposite with this film. Rather than adding character or charm it makes the whole thing feel very two-dimensional, and doesn't allow us, by the medium of more uncomfortable angles, to experience more challenging emotions. Rather than feel actually there, we feel like silent observers, unable to actually immerse ourselves in the world.
Are there any interesting running themes? Well, I suppose there are a few interesting contrasts. Love vs. family, for instance. The film enjoys bringing into question the differences between family love, sexual love, and romantic love. Much like the greek philios, eros, and agape. The best instance of this would be the relationship between Margot, the adopted daughter of the family, and the biological son Richie, who discover that they are both in love with each other, despite having grown-up together. To be fair, this was an interesting concept, but it is butchered by the film. Instead of allowing the interesting conflict to take place (what do the parents think about it, what does her husband think about it, what do they think about it) this is entirely glossed over in a bid for cheap laughs. For shame. Rather than allow Margot to change the way she acts between meeting him, or between knowing about his feelings, or between the rest of the family finding out, everyone remains exactly the same: almost unphased. Perhaps that's a clever statement on the futility of love, but I really think that the film is going for the opposite.
Depression. Interestingly discussed by the film, but not made real by the fact that we never see them not depressed. So instead of us seeing them in their distraught state, we just assume that that's how people act in the Wes Anderson universe. That is really an unfortunate loss.
To summarise, The Royal Tenenbaums is a big thumbs down from me. I think that Wes Anderson remains to get far too much praise for an extremely repetitive and ineffective style of film making, and I hope that people come to realise this sooner rather than later. I'm going to give it a 3.5 out of ten, purely because of the interesting contrasts of music and camera, as well as the occasionally cool shot.
