By Seth Keim

And Now for Something Completely Different. And Entirely Familiar: Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. Fox

Boggis and Bunce and Bean
One fat, one short, one lean
These horrible crooks
So different in looks
Were none the less equally mean.

In Roald Dahl’s classic children’s novel Fantastic Mr. Fox there are three successful farmers who, as the above limerick describes, might vary in appearance, but are the same in essence. Director Wes Anderson has five live action films to his credit, the first being Bottle Rocket, and the most recent The Darjeeling Limited. These films are all very different in setting, from a prep school in Texas to a deep-sea vessel in the middle of the ocean to a train traversing India. However, While these films differ in place and dress, they all find a common tone, a congruent cinematic language. Different in looks, they were none the less the meticulous vision of their director, intersecting at ironic detachment, dysfunctional families, and distinctive attention to detail. Breaking from his traditional medium Anderson has adapted Fantastic Mr. Fox, his first foray into stop-motion. What he managed to do with the film is nothing short of fantastic. It a gorgeous yet rough film that’s a joy to look at and a wonder to experience. It is, in short, like no other animated film before it. It is, however, astonishly, completely a Wes Anderson film, none the less equally poignant and beautiful as his others.

Certainly, one has a right to be skeptical of Anderson’s adaptation of Mr. Fox. His films have increasingly been an exploration of the same themes; broken families, daddy issues, peter pan syndrome. And many might argue that the stories have become secondary to the stylized detail that has become one of Wilson’s signatures. Taking on a stop-motion film, a Roald Dahl classic, could he succeed? Especially when original collaborator and Nightmare Before Christmas director Henry Selick left the project? Even with the project complete word began to leak out the Anderson was an impossibly controlling director, and, almost in contrast to this, decided to direct the animation via email, staying in France while filming proceeded in London. The film’s director of photography, Tristan Oliver, even told the LA Times that that Anderson is “a little sociopathic,” and remarked that he suspected the filmmaker was “a little O.C.D. Contact with people disturbs him.” It was against this negativity and gradual critical backlash that the film has been released. And it’s against this backdrop that Anderson delivers perhaps his best film since Rushmore.

Entertainment Weekly film critic Owen Glieberman astutely notes, “in essence, he [Wilson]’s always been making cartoons.” And while Glieberman and I disagree on our thoughts on his live-action efforts (I believe they are all excellent), he is somewhat right in this sense. Wilson’s characters are so highly stylized; in fact, they are costumed, from Rushmore’s Max Fisher in his prep school uniform to the Team Zissou tracksuits in The Life Aquatic. And, in a way, his settings – the house in The Royal Tenenbaums, the boat in Aquatic, the train in Darjeeling – are rather like dioramas, hermetic worlds enclosed on all but one side. It was, then, a natural progression for Anderson to move to the animated realm, and in fact, free from the constraints of a boat or a train, he creates his most open, expansive, ambitious film yet, but one that is totally true to his tone.

Like other Anderson films, Mr. Fox features a flawed lead male lead (see: Zissou, Steve; Tenenbaum, Royal) of the same name; he’s a husband, a father, and a thief. Voiced by George Clooney, it’s a bit jarring at first to hear his unique, matinee idol voice; however, very quickly you adjust, and his smooth voice turns out to be the perfect match for Mr. Fox’s calculated cool and selfish ambitions. After swearing off a life a crime to take care of his family, a restless, unsatisfied Mr. Fox is hit with boredom, the desire for something greater that his afflicted many Anderson protagonists. Thus, with an opossum named Kylie (voiced by Anderson’s old friend Wally Wolodarsky) at his side, Mr. Fox resumes his life of crime, successfully pilfering from the cruel old farmers who were the subjects of the children’s limerick. However, the farmers soon catch on and attack Mr. Fox’s home, forcing him, his wife Felicity, his son Ash, his wife’s nephew Kristofferson and Kylie to burrow their way through the terra firma in order to survive. There they meet up with other members of the community – badgers, rabbits, a field mouse, – whose homes have been displaced as a result of Mr. Fox’s gambits. Finally recognizing the consequences of his actions, like Clooney as Danny Ocean, Mr. Fox formulates a plan to defeat the trio of farmers.

It’s a fine story, and one that keeps the viewer appropriately engaged. However, it’s not the story that sets this film apart from animated films before it. It’s the story telling. The film manages to take the elements of Anderson’s live action films – the specific wardrobe, the title cards, the severe deep focus, the dead center framing, the distinct comedic tone and, yes, the incredibly minute details – and transpose them onto each frame of Mr. Fox. This gives the characters a special life, an air of authenticity and realism.

But it’s not just enough that Mr. Fox succeeds in carving out a Wes Anderson film via a stop-motion tale. No, it’s that the filmmakers gathered all these elements and created something truly special, something unlike any other contemporary animated film. In eschewing typical CGI or claymation, the animal models, with their whiskers moving gently in the breeze, are alive, fully living, breathing, and thinking characters. There is emotion in their eyes and deliberation to their movements. It takes a moment to get used to, since it’s not the smooth, fluid look we’re now accustomed to, but it soon takes hold. Combine this distinct look with the dialogue, the offbeat humor and the rather adult themes, and Mr. Fox is a unique experience.

How good and how original is it? Part of me wants to claim it has a chance to upset Up at the Oscars, an assumed lock to win the Animated Film award and likely contender for a Best Picture nomination. Certainly Up has the pedigree, and it’s a damn good, surprisingly mature and moving film. However, with all Pixar films we know we’re going to get a stellar, clever, innovative first half followed by a chase scene in a more traditional, less effective second half. In DreamWorks films, like Monsters Vs. Aliens, we’ll encounter a plethora of pop culture references, winks at the audience and childish humor. Fantastic Mr. Fox, on the other hand, gives us something completely novel.

Is Mr. Fox better than Up? Maybe. Will it surprise everyone and steal the Oscar? Probably not. However, I doubt Anderson will mind. With Mr. Fox he created a vivid, elaborate, and truly distinct world, but by the time the winners are announced he’ll likely be onto his next creation, something wholly different but undoubtedly familiar.