The New Yorker (2021)

Modern film criticism basically boils down to calling something "pretentious" or "overrated" whenever you don't personally enjoy it. There isn't really a third option anymore.

Even though everything about it screams "sit back and relax," I actually struggled to stay focused during the latest Wes Anderson flick. Maybe it was just that fractured storytelling approach? It felt a bit exhausting at times, especially since those signature Wes vibes—you know, the pastel colors, the perfect symmetry, all those dramatic zooms...—kept pulling my attention away from what was actually happening.

Or maybe we’re all just being spoiled by Screen Junkies and all that stuff online...

Whatever it is, I'm definitely going to try catching his next one on the big screen in a theater.

I barely managed to follow The New York Times, and I'm honestly not even sure if I saw the whole thing through. On another note, I've been wondering—is symmetry really the defining trait of Wes Anderson's style, or is there something deeper at play?

"The New York Times" is a monstrous amount of information for today’s sluggish, distracted standards—especially in under two hours—yet it remains masterfully coherent. The problem lies with you. 🙂

Maybe I'm just looking at it wrong.
@Puky Poblem, the thing is, Wes Anderson's shots aren't always symmetrical, even though everyone loves to drone on about his symmetry. He uses centered compositions quite often, but usually, the goal is to flatten the depth and perspective to create that specific dollhouse effect.

northerncrane4 said:“The New York Times” is an absolute overload of info for today's slow and lazy standards (especially for under two hours!), but man, it’s so easy to follow and just masterful. Honestly? The problem is you guys. 🙂

I really, truly wanted to love it... but at the end of the day, I just didn't feel that "love letter to old-school journalism" vibe. It felt like it needed a touch more subtlety, maybe a bit more minimalism in how things move. Then again, maybe it was just made for die-hard fans. Such a bummer I didn't catch this one in a theater...

electriccanyon26 said:@Puky Poblem, the thing is, Wes Anderson's shots often AREN'T symmetrical, even though everyone loves to talk about his symmetry. He uses centered compositions all the time, but usually just to flatten out the depth and perspective to get that cool dollhouse effect.

Fair enough, I'll give you that. 👍

Steven Newman50 said:I really wanted to love it—honestly—but I just didn't get that "old-school magazine love letter" feeling.

Fair enough—but how much experience do you actually have with that kind of print? I mean, those magazines you’d pick up and obsess over for a month, written by actual intellectuals.

northerncrane4 said:Fair enough, but how much do you actually know about that kind of print media? You know, those magazines you’d pick up, keep for a month, and realize were just written by some pretentious intellectuals...

There are certain movies, deep-dive books, and all sorts of stuff covering topics I wasn't super familiar with before, but they really helped me grasp why it mattered and what it meant at the time. Even Wes Anderson pulled that off with his earlier stuff. I get the general idea of what The New York Times is supposed to be representing here, but it just didn't click for me...

Steven Newman50 said:There are films, monographs, and other works covering similar themes that I wasn't fully acquainted with either—works that helped me understand why these subjects mattered and what they signified for their era.

I’d argue "The New Yorker" conveyed that much to you, too—it just seems you aren't a fan.

Besides, instead of actually synthesizing the points provided, you just pick them apart until there's "too much noise."