MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Darjeeling Preview Limited

I will get into The Darjeeling Limited a little later, but…
Perhaps the most reportable part of the film was the little 5 minute (roughly) pre-film film that Wes Anderson did with Jason Schwartzman that was shown last night at the Fox lot screening of the film… and is not expected to be a part of the theatrical release of the film.
The short takes place just before the brothers get on the train and features on of Schwartzman’s Jack’s ex-girlfriends… played by Natalie Portman. Yes, internet geeks, another Natalie Portman scene involving sex, a naked Portman, and no frontal nudity.
But it is actually quite compelling… almost as though Anderson is painting Portman, as so many artists seem to want to do. You have Mike Nichols view of her, The Wachowski view of her, Wong Kar Wai’s view of her, etc. And the way Anderson uses her here is particularly painter-like… quite compelling… quite beautiful… quite sexy… but not about the personal bits.
Ironically, this is the part of the film that the internet will most desire… and will probably have to wait for DVD to see… unless Searchlight is cleverly going to let this segment loose on the web… where it will serve as a rather approproiate preview of the bigger film.
What wasn’t compelling, by the way, is that the short was played as though it was the feature and we were “treated” to a 10 minute break afterwards before the main film began. That felt rather pretentious. But the model for this – which may or may not be in Anderson’s lexicon – is Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life which had a short before the film which eventually invaded the feature a little over an hour into the movie.
Either way, nice to see anyone pushing the form in the mainstream.

Be Sociable, Share!

5 Responses to “Darjeeling Preview Limited”

  1. Yeah, I initially thought the short followed by a five-minute break for tea and cookies (which turned into a 10-15 minute break) was unnecessary and pretentious, too. By the time the movie ended, however, I decided it was an inspired move.

    Because of the break (and the tea and cookies), the short felt more like a piece of pre-history than it would have had it been attached to the print as a prologue. The break put just enough distance between it and the movie proper, I felt.

    Too bad it won’t be shown in front of the film theatrically. I’m sure it would be impractical, and audiences (and exhibitors) wouldn’t stand for it. But taht bit of weirdness certainly puts you in the proper frame for the movie.

  2. djk813 says:

    Apparently, you’ll be able to see the short film at a few Apple Stores:
    http://www.indiewire.com/buzz/070916.html#009827

  3. IOIOIOI says:

    I have read more positives about that short than the actual movie itself. This does leave me confused and hoping Fox realizes that Anderson fans would love to spend 10 extra minutes in a theatre watching this short film. If they can add to 28 weeks later and Napoleon Dynamtie around 10 minutes of extra footage. Searchlight should be able to actually put this short film out with the flick from the beginning of limited releasing.

  4. Devin Faraci says:

    When I saw it about two weeks ago there was no break between the short and the film. What was funny was that despite being handed a note from Anderson about the short, a journalist in the room let out a loud ‘HUH???’ when the Fox Searchlight logo popped up after HOTEL CHEVALIER.

  5. EDouglas says:

    I understand that the short will be available on Apple.com (or maybe it’s ITunes) as well, which is surprising considering the nudity… the first Red Band short?

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon