Auteurship

For the study of auteurship, I decided to watch a few Wes Anderson films. Rushmore, the Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and Fantastic Mr. Fox. All three of these films are definite trademarks of Wes Anderson's artistic style. The only exception of the three is Fantastic Mr. Fox and that's only because it's animated. To be completely honest, I can't tell if I get bored with these films or love them. They're so quirky and awkward that I love the charm and characters in them, but at the same time it feels flat or just... weird. Don't get me wrong, they are all entertaining films.

I think I had the most fun with Mr. Fox, probably because it's animated, but they just have this strange quality about the way the characters interact with each other. It's almost too real but at the same time surreal. It's hard to put my finger on it. Same with Life Aquatic. I love Bill Murray and just about anything he's in. He's just as funny in this film and it's strange how well his sense of humor is in sync with Wes Anderson's quirky style.
What's most interesting about this particular style is how easy it is to reproduce based on how familiar it is.

For example, here's what Spider-Man would be like if good ol' Wes worked on it. It borrows heavily from Rushmore:

Another example (just for fun) is a cross between the video game Star Fox and Fantastic Mr. Fox:

The Real Oz?

   The first novel we were instructed to read was the original 1900 Wizard of Oz. When coming into the novel, I thought for sure I knew this story. Girl goes to Oz, tries to find her way home, kills witch, and finally goes home/wakes up. What I found is that I absolutely did not know the story of the Wizard of Oz - at least not how Frank Baum intended it to be.

   In the novel, there is no antagonist. The wicked witch has about one chapter in the story and then dies, but not before hundreds of other creatures die horrific deaths before her. The biggest difference though was the number of worlds or cities Dorothy visits. To me, this made Oz all the more interesting. I actually prefer this version to the classic 1939 film of the same name. Of course, nothing will replace that movie as it has a nice and cozy piece of my childhood, but now I feel like I'm only getting parts of a better story whenever I think back to the film.

   In class, we discussed the idea of text and what makes up the text. For the longest time, the film version was the Wizard of Oz text for me. I knew no other version. So, for me, stories like Wicked or the Disney film Return to Oz made no sense. They didn't seem like they fit into the story. The lesson that I learned is that it's a story. A story is something that can be told in several different ways and be understood in several different more. The world of The Wizard of Oz in mythological. We all know the wicked witch and Dorothy and the Cowardly Lion. They're basically engrained into our culture. Much like how comic books have many different versions of the same basic story. You just have to choose which one you like the most. For me? I liked the novel a lot better.