FANTASTIC MR FOX looks hip, kooky, awful

I’ve seen the trailer for Fantastic Mr Fox a few times now. Enough times that it’s made an impression. The upcoming Wes Anderson-directed flick looks unique, to say the least. But in this case I think unique will work against the film. Sacrilige! I hear you cry, Wes Anderson is a genius, everything he touches turns to gold! Well that’s, just, like, your opinion, man, but okay. Bear with me.

I have vague but fond memories of reading Roald Dahl’s The Fantastic Mr Fox in my childhood.  I remember it being witty, charming and clever, and I remember the illustrations being sleek and cosy, the characters rough but cute in that particularly Roald Dahl way. The story of humble subterranean mammals rising up and sticking it to big industry was quaint and fun, and the setting was very British: foxes, badgers, rabbits, mice and rats living in their burrows under verdant hills, with a real sense of community and fellowship.

So why the hell is Wes Anderson–the world’s premiere peddler of all things hip, kooky, and ironic–at the helm of the film adaptation of such a charming, British work? Why is the cast full of such hip, cool American actors as George Clooney, Owen Wilson and Bill Murray? And why the heck was it shot with stop-motion miniatures?

I have nothing against stop-motion (King Kong works, and the efforts of Ray Harryhausen fit easily into their respective films)  or Wes Anderson (I actually kind of liked The Darjeeling Limited). But the stop motion in this film looks ugly. Like, really ugly. Almost intentionally ugly. I’m talking beaten-to-a-pulp-with-the-ugly-stick ugly. You thought Owen Wilson’s nose was ugly? That’s peanuts to this film. It’s that ugly.

And then there’s the dialogue. Gone is the wit and charm of the original, to be replaced with cynical, ironic puke like “If what I think is happening, is happening … it better not be.”  Am I going completely batty, or was none of this in the book at all? Sure, adapt the work, stamp it with your own style, but it’s like Anderson’s pushing a square block through a circular hole and ending up with some ugly bastard of a block that no kid would ever want to play with.

Speaking of kids, who’s the target audience supposed to be? According to my rudimentary mathematical skills, the book’s been around almost 40 years, so I’m sure a lot of adults would have some vague desire to relive their childhoods and go see this movie, but what’s in it for the kiddies? An ugly, stiff-haired, stuffed-looking flickering fox yapping mechanically while wearing a hideous cardboard suit, spouting lines about trademarks and clicks and whistles, and spontaneously dancing in shopping centres? That’s ugly and confusing. Hey little Johnny, wanna go watch the creepy puppets dancing and blowing stuff up or the sparkly new Disney flick where the princess kisses the frog?

But then again I’m sure a lot of adults will be put off by the hideous art style and animation medium–we want to relive our childhoods, not have them taken and reinterpreted by some smug auteur into ugly, charmless dross. And didn’t Coraline teach us that there’s no money in stop-motion any more? Hand-crafted is out; slick polish is in. But then I guess it wouldn’t be kooky or ironic or unpredictable enough if they had gone with a more traditional style, right?

blog comments powered by Disqus