The part about their feelings, Tilda Swinton's character had that exact line: “I never had children, but sometimes I wonder if I wish I should have.” She doesn't wish she should have, she wonders if she should wish. It's a very fascinating layer of conditionals.
I think that moment with the griddle is significant because Jones Hall actually burns his hand. We see Mercedes Ford break character and react honestly, because of course the actor is not supposed to actually burn his hand during the play. But the actor is experiencing very real grief over Conrad and does it. I love this film so much. I think it's my new favorite Wes Anderson movie. I'm glad people are talking about it.
they have a scene of Jones and Conrad discussing the scene before it happens in the ‘play’, they mention that sentiment of not knowing why it happens but knowing it has to happen. very subtle but effective!! love this film!
Something I'm beginning to love about Anderson is how his movies just casually put A-list actors within abstract masterpieces. It's somehow a completely different feeling to seeing them elsewhere.
The #GREATEST #Actor on Planet Earth for the last 40 years is #BradHartliep - #GREATER than #TomHanks, #LeonardoDiCaprio, #RobertDeNiro, #JackNicholson, #ScarlettJohanson and EVERY single actor you can think of .. "A-List Actors" is a bullshit comment - they don't f'ng exist .. the ONLY reason they are "a-list" actors is because they are ass-kissers to the #Hollywood #Elite - they #Brown-nose their way to the top of the ass-kissing ladder -- it has NOTHING to do with Talent or Capability as an Actor .. it's 1000% pure POLITICS and Nepotism and ZERO PERCENT qualification .. There are literally HUNDREDS of "a-list" actors with ZERO acting talent and hundreds of "a-list" directors with ZERO directing talent .. I am Three Hundred MILLION times MORE #Talented and FAR GREATER as an #Actor than every single so called "a-list" actor -- and I absolutely GUARANTEE YOU that Saving Private Ryan and Greyhound and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and EVERY single movie that Tom Hanks or Jack Nicholson or DeCaprio or DeNiro appeared in would be 300 Hundred Million Times BETTER with #BradHartliep in the #LeadRole ..
It occurs to me that Brian Cranston appearing in the colour section actually broke 2 separate 4th walls. Not only did it break the 4th wall between Asteroid City the play and Asteroid City's production, but it also broke the 4th wall between Asteroid City's production and Asteroid City the TV show about the creative process. From the perspective of the actors playing the characters in the play it's already confusing because he doesn't exist in their world, but the world of *their* actors, but from the characters point of view themselves Brian Cranston as an entity is beyond incomprehensible. They stare at him dumbfounded until he leaves the frame at which point they promptly reject his existence, unsteadily returning to the conversation they were scripted to have. It's almost Lovecraftian to think about. That you could peel back the layers of reality and discover that you were just a character played by an actor, only to then realise THAT actors 4th wall had also been violated.
I was struck by the little smirking crack Hope Davis gives to ScarJo at the end of the scene about "I thought it might have been your ex-husband in Utah..." A reference to a previous scene her character wasn't in, definitely feels like an improvised moment between two theatrical actors after getting thrown off their rhythm. Kind of an "Okay, this scene turned into a shitshow... lets have some fun with it." moment. Also, Cranston looks just as surprised as any other cast member when Augie/Jones/Jason storms offstage at the climax... looking at him with that same kind of "What are you doing here?" gaze.
I think a great visual analogy for the layers of narrative and meaning in this movie is the billboard you can see at 9:10 - a billboard featuring a picture of a billboard, both of which feature the same scenery that's behind the billboard itself.
I was surprised to see a general consensus about the movie having more potential and let people down... It instantly became my favorite Wes Anderson flick. Maybe that's because I watched it in a theater that really only exists in my town to show old/indie/small budget moves and the theater just has so much charm it can make anything fun. Maybe it's because I really enjoyed the setting. But I was surprised to find that not as many people liked it. It felt small and self contained, yet had so much to unpack. My partner and I were talking about it the whole drive home and still bring it up in conversation today.
I saw a matinee show in an empty theater (just me and one other person ten rows away) and the same thing struck me. There's so many little things that speak to the ephemeral existence of things. In a small town theater, or at a lonely showing, I think you get that feeling already.
I had the exact same thing, I love this movie and when I finished the movie (the day it came out) I thought everyone would be as exited by it as I was, but that want the case
I got to see it in theater with a packed house, and was stunned to hear how audibly displeased people were with it at the end. Really strange reaction to meta text considering how anal we’ve gotten about finding the meaning in things as a species. My friends and I adored it, though, but maybe because we handle our existential dread through TTRPG’s lol
Asteroid City is a beautiful analogue for how many neurodivergent people see the world. Speaking from my autistic experience, much of my life feels like I'm having to act in order to make connections with the people around me. And when everything is suddenly in complete chaos, all I desperately want to do is find out who *I* am - not the actor I've been conditioned to be, but who I naturally settle into being. And much of that personal narrative is explored through taking myself out of "the scene" (i.e. a conversation with a coworker) and hyper-analyzing my motivations behind or even beyond the moment. Seeing a bunch of actor-characters struggle to find the "right way" to receive information and act in kind, while simultaneously acknowledging this shared meta-reality with everyone else in the film, was such a unique, refreshing, and emotionally resonant experience that Asteroid City has quickly become one of my favorite movies in recent memory. A beautiful example of a movie that isn't made for everyone, but if you are in the target audience, it feels overwhelmingly like it was MADE FOR YOU.
Thanks for sharing, I appreciate this incite. I how the line "It doesn't matter. Just keep playing, you're doing it right" (paraphrasing) fits into this for you.
As a fellow autistic, I love how all of Wes Anderson's characters feel autistic. They stare directly at each other, say exactly what they mean, often in a fast paced, blunt style that I relate to deeply. They're direct when doing something and don't mince words. It makes me feel seen, even if that wasn't his intention.
That's an interesting angle I didn't consider. I'm autistic myself and also experience this phenomenon but can't really say that the movie or its characters reminded me of it while watching, probably because I was waiting for the actual meaning of everything to "click" for me, which I guess is one of the points it was making lol
I feel like this is Anderson's mid-life crisis movie. I feel like he has been asking himself big questions, so he expressed his feelings of existential uncertainty on the script, where he goes extremely meta right from Bryan Cranston's opening monologue right to the end.
I admit I wasn't sold on this movie when I first saw it--but it wormed its way into my consciousness. I can't stop thinking back to it. I think it was the line "It doesn't matter, just keep telling the story" that, to put it academically, rocked my shit.
I always took the meaning of the movie to be about loss and grief and "how do i move on" and getting tangled up and not remembering how you used to live, then something reminding you (margot robbie scene) about why you do what you do it all, and you just gotta keep doing it
My take on the “message” here is that there doesn’t always need to be a message. The visual artifice can sometimes be just that- spectacle. Art and the message of art is driven just as much by the audience as it is the artist themselves. I walked away feeling almost hollowed by the message, centered around not just “finding meaning” in art, life, etc., but also coming to terms with the fact that not everything has meaning in art, life, etc. I’ve seen it 3 times now and each time I felt more and more sad. This is pinnacle Wes Anderson, imo.
The most "there is no message" part has to be the running shootout. The same two cars and a motorcycle go past three times, guns blazing, and no one ever reacts. We never learn what's going on and are left trying to make sense of something that simply doesn't have a meaning. It's absurd and I love it.
I think you're right, and I think that this point is made especially clear by the fact that all events we see are fiction, even within the world of the movie. The documentary is stated to be about a fictional production. The struggles of Jones [Augie's actor] aren't real, they've been created for the purpose of the documentary. We're watching actors playing actors playing actors. And yet, even though it's made explicit that this story and its events are not real [even within the world of the documentary], we can still relate to it and find meaning in the story being told.
I think the reason that the movie frustrates a lot of people is because there's an inherent clash between that side of the film, the side that feels like such an obvious answer it's almost hitting us over the head, and the entire rest of the movie that really feels like it's trying to say something. The question they ask is "Am I really supposed to believe there's nothing more to this movie when every single line that's said seems to have at least 3 different meanings, and nearly everything that happens only makes any sense at all if you consider it's just a metaphor you don't understand yet?" I think that juxtaposition is on purpose, and is more to the point of the film than either part individually, but I just can't figure out how they go together. The meaninglessness and the meaning are both important parts of it, and discounting the meaning and saying the point is that there isn't any message or meaning is missing half the film, but discounting the meaninglessness is also missing half the film, but how can you try to make a point out of meaninglessness when the point is that there is no meaning and how can you reconcile that with the half of the film that has meaning when meaning is inherently opposed to meaninglessness and AAAAAAAAAAGAHAHBKJSHFGINRGSG This movie is hard to think about it hurts my head
I was thinking though, even if it's not Auggie's "real" struggle, he seems to be conveying something real from his experience of life. Yet another layer!
Although I think the line about "just keep telling the story" is authentic on all levels. In a weird way it's an anti-suicide film. It encourages the audience to keep going.
I am an emotional man, and I am okay with that. I often cry during movies with really good scenes, but I usually feel it coming on. When Augie said he didn’t know the meaning of the play and the director told him it didn’t matter, just keep telling the story, I instantly began to cry and had to pause the movie. I’ve never been so simultaneously blindsided and affirmed and destroyed and reassembled.
I felt a lot of different things during the movie. Some parts are sad, some funny, some touching... but there's a strong resonnance beetween the confusion of the spectator, the confusion of the actors (of the play) and the confusion of the characters (in the play). (And there's maybe another layer, the actors of Wes's movie that are also a possible target of all this, are playing a movie and showing feelings while not understanding what is this all about) Having all these layers muddle even more the distinction between the spectator and the movie and makes you part of the global experience in a stronger way. The fact that you feel what the characters feel and that you are (as spectator) as confused as the characters made everything even more relatable. Things happen, we feel stuff. We don't always know why or how to respond, most of the time we just keep going. That's part of life.
I don't think that's a good thing. It means you were being taken out of the emotional experience of watching a movie. I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of what a director wants to make you feel
@@51gan788exactly? It defeats the purpose of art.. I don't see how clever it is... This maybe equivalent to a bad movie where you are aware that you're in a movie, and you have feelings about that awareness...
I’ve seen Asteroid City 4 times, 3 in theaters and 1 at home. I still don’t feel as if I completely understand it, but I do very strongly feel that it is not only the best film of the year, but one of the greatest American motion pictures of all time. In the coming decades I hope to see Asteroid City rightly regarded as the astonishing creation it is.
If you watch closely on the balcony scene, Augie actually said "It's you, the wife who played my actress" which sounds wrong because it's supposed to be "It's you, the actress who played my wife". Glitches like this happens when the character is deep in their personal problem. Same thing happened when the narrator, played by Bryan Cranston, appeared in color in one of the scene where Midge's (Scarlett) method acting bit (the greasepaint on her cheek) is questioned for the second time by the cookie trooper mother, the first time is by Augie. Also the mother talks about Midge's second ex-husband in Utah when just in a couple previous scene, Midge tells Augie about it in one of the window scene. I see the two separate worlds in the movie (the play and the movie set) as the repserentation of the human world and the heaven (or at least the dream world) because of how the director and the writer acts like gods who wrote and made the story and then just leave it be, even the director is sleeping while the play is till on going, not intervening in the play. It is only when Augie enter the dream world/heaven that he can consults with god (the director) about what is the meaning of it's heart broken life and then the director doesn't really gives him the exact answer that Augie wanted but instead tells him to keep on living and being himself because that's the meaning of life itself, it is lo live. Also it is in this dream/heaven world that Augie met his supposed dead wife. Oh and one last thing, on the last scene, Augie overslept and missed everyone leaving the city because in the dream world/heaven, he missed his cue on the play by talking to the actress on the balcony scene. You can't wake up if you don't fall asleep.
Nolan just wishes he is complicated and wants people to think he is complicated. He is anything but. That’s why always the $$$ spent on advertising his latest “technical” experiments. A soulless creator. Not sure why his name is even next to Wes’ at all, unless to show the difference between an artist and a… salesman?
Nolan is the faux complexity, what seems deep and isnt really, and he's catering to pretentious hipsters who can feel better about 'being smarter for understanding his movies'. Wes Anderson movies actually have depth. As pretty as Nolan's movies are, they are rather shallow, especially Tenet which seems like it has a lot of depth, when in reality the story is just told in an overcomplicated way to make people feel like the movie is deep. The only difference between some high budget action flick like Marvel or a Bay movie and a Nolan movie, is that those are honest about what they are, while Nolan movies pretend to be something they arent. Which is deep. They are just pretty summer blockbusters.
@@cinexeonit’s not a competition. Your guy’s movies aren’t better because you shit on somebody else’s movies. You don’t get to define what an artist is.
@@nemtudom5074there is a pretty significant amount of irony to saying “ he is catering to pretentious hipsters who can feel better about being smarter for understanding his movies” and then immediately following that up with “Wes Anderson’s movies actually have depth” .
The way you used your own meta framing device to support your explanation was very clever. You say “I’m tired, and I’m not really sure my point is getting across,” maybe because you actually feel that way, but also to demonstrate a difference but also a connection between the “you” who is a confident narrator/RUclipsr voice, itself unsure that it was getting the point across, and a “you” that is more private and personal. Meanwhile, the point you’re trying to make is about how, in the film, the actors (Johansson/Schwartzman) inform their characters, who are also actors that inform their characters, all of whom are searching for the meanings in their lives and jobs.
Asteroid City had so much potential. The insights were spot on. We can all tell for certain that you've made this fairly easy to digest from an audience's perspective.
6:18 I think You are reading something that isn’t there. The actor playing the alien is saying “ I have to figure out what the metaphor is because it’s not explicit in the text of the script of the play.” That is why the tenses are mixed. Because preparation for the play is continuous but the script is a static thing that already exists and has an end. It’s not a mixture of actor and character . It’s just actor saying 1 part of the creative process (the script) is done. But another part of the creative process (the actors interpretation) is not.
Fantastic video. I watched this movie 4 times, but you managed to pinpoint probably the biggest reason why this has grown to be one of my favorite ever movies- better than I ever could have. I love the ending of your video especially, with all of the hints at the movie- you even managed to include Augie’s “sometimes I sometimes feel” at 11:24 - really amazing work!
It’s definitely one of my favorites, but to pick one is a tall task. They are all so different. One commonality is we always get to see Wes in the movie. His essence, his smile during a certain scene. It permeates the text, and I love that. It gives me so much to enjoy on my inevitable rewatches. David Lynch does that for me too. At times I’m watching a scene and I can see his joyous, giddy, expression in my mind. It’s attention to every detail because they all matter.
Not sure if anyone else is seeing it but maybe the play is also a reflection on real-life actors and their craft. We literally get a lot of backstage that shows us how actors search for their characters, how their life influences their work, etc. Anderson has been in the theater/movie sphere for so long, he must have a ton of insights and philosophy on that I can't say it's my favorite Anderson movie (that title is forever held by Fantastic Mr. Fox), but I appreciate it a lot
Thomas Flight, in his own script for this video, made his speaking sound like the characters sound in the film: "I sometimes believe I sometimes do this" and "I think it's tempting to think this" and "What we are feeling is feeling like..."; brilliant stuff.
Thanks for this. I watched the movie for the first time yesterday, followed immediately by the “Beyond the screenplay” podcast episode about it - it was great to hear their comments and now yours. I loved the movie, and your interpretation of the “you can’t wake up if you don’t fall asleep” line is way.m better than what fuzzy notions were floating around in my brain. Thanks for this!
4:36. Yes, and the black eye is her response to the director advising that she relies on her beauty too much. This is the first good analysis video I’ve seen of this film. You gained a subscriber. Best film of 2023.
His entire filmography is one of using other forms of media to create a fourth wall in the narrative, but using the components of the adopted media of other art forms to highlight how it's a bit of a farse to ignore the fact that art is performative. All his characters use their art to be their identity because meaning is a desperate need for all humans. Whether watching a play, documentary, film, or listening to music you seek that validation but can only have get it from the artiface. People are the only saving grace. But we almost always find our path through art. This is why Wes Anderson is brilliant.
The film is joyful in its use of absurdism - yet so deeply profound. For me, Anderson's message is non-dual -- it hits us on the head that the reality we have constructed for ourselves is just story, just another dream layer. The actors themselves shout, "you can't wake up if you don't fall asleep." Most people live their lives asleep to the fact they are just a created character in a story. Just a single example: Johansson's character is referred to many times as being a comic genius, yet there is no time when we actually see this for ourselves - there is no true experience of it, it is just a story everyone repeats.
No idea why everyone started hating on the movie when it first came out. The first time I saw it, I thought it deserved to be up there with 2001: A Space Odyssey!
Who else saw the first thumbnail and prepared for their lunch break to see a new one. I know why they change but it always catches me off guard lol Excited to watch the video after I see asteroid city this evening.
A superb video that articulates many of the best points my circle of friends have raised with an editing panache we lack the time to develop. Allow me to list a couple of observations we've made that I believe tie in to the major strokes illustrated here. 1) There's an extra layer to the entire story that I haven't seen many pick up on, which is the unnamed and undefined cast of actors inbetween the "Conard Earp" world and our reality. Conrad Earp is a fictional character being portrayed, not directly by Edward Norton, but by an unknown actor who is in turned played by Ed. The only character we ever meet on this layer is The Narrator, as portrayed by Bryan Cranston, a very unique character. He presents the supposed writing of Asteroid City as a play, with all of its characters fictional and portrayed by actors - these are the ones played by the real life actors, highlighting just how many layers of dense refraction the ultimate drama shines through. 2) Midge Campbell / Mercedes Ford / Kim has a special role as the most heavily layered "charactor" in the narrative. It's Scarlett Johannsen, portraying an unknown actress, portraying Mercedes "Kim" Ford, portrayed Midge Campbell, who at last in part portrays a grief-stricken secretary in the 20s/30s looking for a divorce. In this regard she is the opposite of The Narrator, who is just a standard mono-layered character by Bryan Cranston - by studying these two we can learn a lot about how true personality transmits through the layers of fiction. 3) Pay very close attention to eyes and vehicles. These are the two most important symbolic devices throughout the entire movie. When you understand what they mean both individually and in tandem, to "take a ride through the eyes", you'll have a great grasp on that cryptic near-ending phrase "You can't wake up if you don't fall asleep".
Just left a comment where I also discussed your first point. I think a lot of people miss this because it's stated within the opening line of the movie and never brought up again, but it personally resonated with me very strongly to watch the film with the understanding that none of the events depicted ever took place in the world of the unnamed actors. It feels like it should devalue the emotional impact of the events we observe, if it's all fictional. But I think that's specifically why Wes Anderson would include it; to highlight that the events being fictional does not devalue their emotional influence.
Only noticed watching this that during the crater madness where Augie steps through the door does that scene actually look like a play with people flying on wires, different actors doing different version of chaos, and the set suddenly looks fake. Until then Asteroid City looked "real"
i remember sitting in the movie theatre with my friend watching this movie, and breaking down sobbing during the balcony scene between the two actors. my friend, at the end of the movie, asked why I started crying so much, because she was much more confused about the whole thing than i was. i was hit very hard by this movie, in many different ways, as both an actor and a writer, and especially as a person just confused by the world I'm still trying to newly navigate as a sophomore in college. this movie helped me understand things in life a bit more, and quickly became one of my favorites. thank you wes anderson, and thank you thomas for making this video diving into it. great stuff!
I hate the fact that you cried about an uncertain world but nevertheless I think this will be a good lesson and character building moment for the youth of the Western world . The looming recession , global conflict, internal division, etc. Typical struggles that happen in 3rd world countries caused by the Western world.
I got hit quite hard by this particular scene as well. And I'm a middle age man from China. That's the magic of theatre or let's say art. When done right, It often kindly reflects on the universal suffering without our mind consciously acknowledging it (which is the reason why your friend got all confused). However, body recognises it, subconsciously. Therefore, you cried. So did I. I'm grateful Mr. Anderson have brought us such an incredible piece of art.
@@asellandrofacchio7263 it's pretty obvious, western privilege built off the suffering of people from the third world like myself. It will be good for westerners to struggle a bit with the way the world is shifting. It will build their empathy and compassion in mass. Obviously there are a select few with this empathy already.... but I. Am talking about in mass
After watching this, it’s making me finally ask a question that I’ve been wanting to ask about your videos: what do you read in relation to filmmaking? If you do, why not mention them? This essay made me think of Deleuze’s Cinema books, Branigan’s exploration of the POV shot, Feuer’s discussion of musicals and dreams, and so many other film books and articles. I love your work, but I’ve been feeling mixed for a while (especially with the metamodern videos). I think you do great work, so these questions and critiques are mainly things I’m noticing as a film and media academic.
The short answer is if I'm not mentioning it I probably haven't read it. I'm aware of Deleuze's work a bit but haven't read any of those sources you mention. If my thinking on a film or subject is heavily influenced by someone's writing I generally try to cite it directly. But I don't do much extensive reading on film theory per-se. In general I've read/absorbed much more general philosophy and media theory (McLuhan, Neil Postman, John Berger, Eisenstein, David Bordwell, Zizek, Camus, Baudrillard, etc) the truth is I'm not writing in an academically rigorous way, but I'm also not an academic and not trying to operating in any kind of academic capacity. In the Metamodern video I do cite in the description every direct source that I used for that video, the rest is just me apply the understanding I gained via those sources. Hope that clarifies.
Totally get it! There are film theory writings that definitely isn’t digestible and way out there for your videos (Deleuze and the ones you mentioned being great examples 😅) Some of my fav books and articles recently have been from makers perspective or about practice (Eisenstein, Deren, Tarkovsky, Walter Murch, many French directors). I wanted to ask because a lot of the questions and observations you make remind me of writing or commentary I have read or am reading for exams. Thanks for the reply! I usually share your Parasite Video Editing if I use the film in class for editing
Something I don't see people mention often is the fact that the play "Asteroid City," even within the world of the documentary, is an entirely fictional production. There is no play called "Asteroid City." It exists entirely within the context of the documentary. The death of Conrad didn't actually happen, Jones' grief isn't actually real; they're actors playing actors. I think this is really important to consider when trying to interpret the film as a whole, because people tend to narrow in on the meaning of Jones and Conrad's relationship, while forgetting that Jones himself is also an actor, and did not really experience any of the events the documentary discusses. I think this illustrates part of Wes Anderson's intentions here though, because while these events are entirely fictional, we can still relate to and derive personal meaning from their experiences. I think this is meant to be an allegory for how media can be used to process complex emotions [my personal interpretation of "can't wake up if you don't fall asleep"], and that "fiction" doesn't make the emotional impact any less legitimate or personally real. "Asteroid City" never happened on any meta level, and yet the experiences depicted can still resonate with us. I think this also ties into the suggested importance of the audience in interpreting the film, re: "just keep telling the story." It's okay if you don't know what it means, and it doesn't necessarily have to have a concrete meaning, because it will resonate with somebody and that alone is important. Because media is important, even if it's not real.
Movies are about showing, not telling. A screenplay doesn't usually give you direct access to a character's moment-by-moment internal monologue (unless it breaks that fourth wall for a "Strange Interlude" confession or employs voiceover narration), so most of what's communicated to the viewer comes from the behavior of the actors and the way they are presented within the frame -- within a shot, or through the juxtaposition of multiple shots. The characters may say what they're thinking or feeling, but they also may not be fully honest or even aware of what they're expressing. In fact, they may not necessarily be in a position to know or understand what they mean or what they're feeling. Or they may just be lying. Or the image may be giving us a context for questioning what we're seeing. So, Midge explaining that her cosmetic black eye was an external manifestation of her character's internal state (for rehearsal purposes) makes perfect sense. Feelings made visible. That's what movies are. That's what acting is. That's what storytelling is. For me, "Asteroid City" felt flat (not in a good way) on first viewing, but you've prompted me to give another go when I might be more receptive. Thanks for that.
I'm pretty sure that I thought this movie was a masterpiece and one of my favourites of Wes Anderson... Emotional on so many levels, hilarious, beautiful. Totally shocked because I actively disliked Isle of Dogs and French Dispatch and came in expecting this to be "self-indulgent Wes Anderson". Don't know how you could say there was no story or emotions in this one!
I feel that as well about it being very self indulgent, there was too much stuff going on, so many layers. It reminded me that other movie “Synecdoche, New York” which was not so fun to watch.
It’s got a ton of good elements but it feels half baked in a lot of ways. I really feel like it failed to explore nearly every theme it seemed to, a lot of his defenses feel a little like trying to justify deficiencies in the script. Like claiming that some lines are written like it’s a writer’s first take at a line, I don’t think it’s that deep or necessarily intentionally linked to the other elements of the story in most cases, he’s just never been good at writing natural dialogue. A film doesn’t need great dialogue to be successful but I really feel that asteroid city only explores its themes at surface level throughout the run time because it’s constantly hopping to a new theme, the audience could almost forget about the themes around grief for much of it, which feels like it should be a crucial plot element since conversations around it capped off the start and end. The way it wraps up too feels unfinished, the characters really go through very little development, and you could say that’s intentional but that’s also why a lot of people left unsatisfied. Also isle of dogs is indeed his worst film, but I would rank French dispatch and basically everything else he’s done above asteroid city from a storytelling standpoint. Visually, asteroid city is beautiful and I wish the other elements supported the strong art and visual direction. Even the soundtrack was pretty lackluster imo, it feels just a single arpeggio through the entire film’s runtime. Another element that felt half finished.
I feel like this movie was, in a lot of ways, Wes Anderson feeling the need to outdo himself in his Wes-Andersoneyness. I thought it was interesting and pretty, but if his goal was to evoke a certain sense of the deep-rooted reality that acting and production is based off of, then he didn’t really do it in a very understandable way.
I feel like another layer is Anderson directly commenting on his own work. So much has been said about how he uses theater like visuals and artifice to create distance, and then suddenly things get real and emotional. I think this is being said outright when the lighting and colors get the most real and everyone says "You can't wake up if you don't fall asleep" This is Anderson saying directly how he makes films. He puts us to sleep with pretty visuals and cute staging and then wakes us up with something real.
I second all of this! My favorite parts I think were the moments of doubling or foreshadowing? Not sure how else to explain it but you reference it with the quickie griddle, there's also the part where Midge says she'll probably end up committing suicide in the bathtub and then we see what looks like that at first. I think my favorite scene is the one with Margot Robbie. I agree, this movie is really hard to explain, difficult to peel back all the layers, but it's genuinely incredible. Also the title screens? If we think of those in real life, I could see those being something we'd add in our minds when remembering our lives. Like okay these are the years I was in high school, then college. But I could also see those being important to the pandemic and how it has warped our general sense of time. Especially how one of the last title/scene cards says "to be played without interruption" that feels very much like what life has been like the past year or so. Not sure where I'm going with all that, but yeah! Great video
I'm teaching a course in Existentialism and trying to convey to students what Heidegger means by truth and un-truth in art, the way being/existence is revealed through art that both reveals and conceals reality. You do a really good job at getting at that concept here.
I think what this movie is about is summed up in the phrase, "You can't wake up, if you don't fall asleep". The "you" is consciousness -- the part of universal consciousness that is currently experiencing this reality (or this play). "Waking up", of course, is becoming aware, or enlightened. Transcending this reality. The "if you don't fall asleep" part is the idea that when we (consciousness) enter this reality we must do so with total amnesia and no memory of where we come from. We must be totally immersed in the reality (or this play) or our experiences will lack honesty. Thus, we must "fall asleep". Falling asleep or becoming totally immersed in this reality is the only way consciousness (we) are going to grow and become "aware" (or wake-up). This is what I think this movie is all about.
The fact that you told your piece in black and white as well as in color using B-roll footage of the shoot to elaborate on the staging of a play inside a play by making it a play within a play within a movie that exists within your essay is not lost on us. ❤
With Asteroid City I learned that a movie can be too meta for me. Right from the beginning the movie tells us that the actual plot and the city are not important and unreal and basically sidelined. The effect it had on me is that I didn't really care about anything. Even though the characters are amazing and played soo well, I didn't care about them and mostly felt nothing. My mind was engaged and I thought about the meaning of everything.. But ultimately I mostly felt bored :D
I assumed that Jason Schwartzman as Jones Hall really did burn himself within the play because of his grief over the death of Conrad Earp. And it shocked Scarlett Johansson as Mercedes Ford so much that he really did it that she broke character.
Beautifly said as always. I also really loved this movie and you've given me some really interesting things to think about next time I watch it and all the time until then. When I saw it the first time, one of my takaways was about the framing itself and to me it felt like Wes created basically a "Bottle Epsiode" and he created a story that would push on the the bottles walls as much as he could. By making the A story be a Play he's able to step away from the bottle while still keeping it in frame, or maybe staying inside a bigger bottle. I'll fully admit that's fairly likely not the impetus of the play but I think it's at least something valid to mull over in regard to the movie. After all one of the coolest things about art is interpetation.
I felt about this movie like I did Thor: Love and Thunder. It's dudes who've been doing variations on the same thing for years. If I had seen this before Rushmore or had seen Thor 4 before What We Do in the Shadows, I'd probably adore them. It's just more of the same though. It's like Madden or Call of Duty. It's like the third Jack Johnson album. You hear the same acoustic guitar doing the same things and even though those things are well put together they feel tired.
asteroid city feels like a cinematic answer to mid-century absurdist playwriting, and it's why i both love the film but see so many people come at it from the wrong angles. this is precisely the right angle.
I interpreted augie burning his hand as a commentary on criticism of "it doesnt make sense for the character to do this, why would they do that" Sometimes there does not need to be a reason. People do things for no reason all the damn time.
In my first view, I thought it was one of the Wes Anderson films I liked the least, but after watching this, I will certainly give it another chance with a second view. Great vid 🎉
This did feel like Wes Anderson's INCEPTION. I enjoyed it (as I always do his films), though I'm still ruminating on the overarching intent. After this film in particular, I was left with the feeling that there was *more* there on a personal level behind what was happening on screen than the recent preceding films.
One aspect that does not get talked about nearly as much as it should is the queer subtext of the movie. Not only does Jones lose his boyfriend and can use that pain to portray something real through the character of Augie. The fact that this movie takes place during the 50s during a phase where lgbtqa+ rights were under extreme attack (lavender scare) makes me think that he might only be able to express his feelings through art. Interestingly enough, he can express it through a more accepted heterosexual relationship. Even in the balcony scene, where he can talk one last time with Conrad is again through a more accepted heterosexual relationship. Art literally allows him to grieve and express himself in a way he probably would never be able to otherwise. The movie makes us care for both of these people and makes their pain equal. I think that is a really powerful message, especially right now. Because you literally can't have Augie without Jones.
I notice with Wes Anderson I generally like his more abstract stories rather than his more earnest ones. I'm usually the opposite of that, but with Anderson's style it fits best. Grand Budapest would probably be the exception. But that film is his masterpiece.
this is much appreciated. I watched it last night and thought it was good, genuinely attempted to say something (s), was wildly entertaining, and retained that certain Anderson charm. admittedly, im not huge into Anderson but I thought it was enjoyable. I'm not entirely sure if the narrative (whatever of it) had any real impact on me but I do know I leave it with a few quotes ingrained into the mind. "“I still don't understand what the play is about.” “It doesn't matter. Just keep telling the story" is something that will stay with me.
I've been thinking about this film a lot, and I really appreciate your explanation of it. You may have been tired, but your thorough and thoughtful explanation excited me even more about this film!
I had to come here to RUclips since it’s not possible to comment (or like) on Nebula. Great video which I watched before and again after watching the movie. The one thing you didn’t mention when talking about the layers of the film is that the deepest level (below TV show and theatrical “making-of”), the play itself, is by far the most cinematic. It is really in this colour section that design, camera movement, editing, etc. are the most utilized and the most important. Though the set is limited, it is not limited in the way of a play, but in the way of a large soundstage build. It doesn’t feel like a play, though that is ostensibly what it is. Whereas the parts about the making of the play are presented in a much more theatrical way.
Both myself and my boss love Wes movies and I saw Asteroid City first. Absolutely loved it. It smacked right up against Royal Tenenbaums for me as a near favorite for me. It was even better on the second viewing. My boss was just "eh" on it. He said he just didnt connect with any of the characters and felt like the whole play aspect should have just been skipped. I dont think he really understood the background story.
Whilst i can appreciate this analysis, and actually found it really interesting, i felt the film itself to be dissapointing. The moment's you talk about of 'realness' failed to connect with me. Everything felt flat, and whilst the choices he made where interesting, everything somehow felt in the way of everything else. Maybe that was the point, maybe i just didn't get it, but the characters just weren't there for me at all.
I'm a huge Wes Anderson fan, but this movie, for me, felt more like a parody of a Wes Anderson movie. It became to much, to meta, to convoluted. Even with all his gimicks and quirks and whatnot, his movies had one coherent story that you could follow, just in his special style. And that is what I love. Starting with french dispatch, he shifted away from that. Even the black and white portions in both movies took away a lot from his charme. His colour palette and composition is what makes his shots so beautiful. Being colourful is important. They were both fine movies (french dispatch better than Asteroid city), but not what I love about his previous ones.
The photographer burns his hand to wake up. He needed the “sleep” made up of this wilderness of events that was his stagnation and grief or else he would never have burned his hand. Now because of burning himself on purpose, unexpectedly and un-premeditated, he is thus free of his belief in determinism. Romance doesn’t free him like in a Hollywood payoff scene. Pain is how he seeks freedom.
the lines that stuck the most with me were the final exchange between schwartzman's and brody's characters: "i need a breath of fresh air," "but you won't find one." sometimes i do need to step back and think about why things are the way they are, but this life shit keeps going.
It's funny that you immediately focus on the "I don't understand the play". I keyed in on that immediately first watch with the "why does my character burn his hand" line. I think it's Wes Anderson saying people are too focused on every little thing in a movie having to make perfect sense. Even the black eye makeup keeps switching eyes. I think it's a pretty high concept movie by Wes Anderson standards.
I saw it as a WA version of inception. Actors IRL playing actors (black and white scenes) playing actors (main narrative), coupled with the “You can’t wake up if you don’t fall asleep” mantra.
This movie feels like looking too closely at an impressionistic painting … too close analytically, and you can see brush strokes and the seemingly random colors, but if you step back and take in the whole perspective it begins to form a cohesive idea … ❤❤❤
I don’t understand how you cant love this movie. It is a play. Its a movie. A beautiful story that explains something but also nothing because it never happened, a story being told about the story that were watching
I’m not nearly smart enough I guess to appreciate how smart this movie and Wes Anderson think they are. I watched it on NyQuil and somehow stayed awake till the end. I’m thinking the two sleep inducers counteracted with each other and kept me awake.(the second one being the movie itself) I LOVED the visual style used to depict the non black and white scenes and my heart sank every time it flipped away from it AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. The ONLY other thing I will remember about this film is how funny I thought it was that Jeff Goldblum got credit for being the claymated alien. That was comic genius and would have been even better if they didn’t even include the one 3 second blink and you’ll miss it “scene” he was actually in. Anyway, this was all just too damn meta for this simpleton’s enjoyment.
This gets at what we mean by "true" and "real." The "real world" comes with constrictions that delimit how we understand and experience our existence. Fiction allows us, I think, to hold the "watchful dragons" in check; through fiction, we can get at reality and what's true in a way that the world outside the fictional world/narrative will not allow. The narrative grants freedom and allows what's true to pour in. It reminds me of something C.S. Lewis once wrote: "I thought I saw how stories of this kind could steal past a certain inhibition which had paralysed much of my own religion in childhood. Why did one find it so hard to feel as one was told one ought to feel about God or the sufferings of Christ? I thought the chief reason was that one was told one ought to. An obligation to feel can freeze feelings. And reverence itself did harm. The whole subject was associated with lowered voices; almost as if it were something medical. But supposing that by casting all these things into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday School associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their real potency? Could one not thus steal past those watchful dragons? I thought one could.”
I know you said you weren’t sure if thee video was getting your thoughts across, but this really helped solidify this movie really connected with me. I absolutely loved the meta framing and the enotionak crutch of the movie wheen Scwartzman and Robbie talked about a "what if"
Just had an insightful 50-minute voice conversation with GPT-4, telling her about Asteroid City (she wasn't familiar with the plot) and discussing its symbolism. Here's the summary she provided at the end: "Asteroid City" appears to be a work that intertwines art, grief, and the relationship between fantasy and reality. The film explores how art reflects and affects life, especially in the context of loss and grief. 1. Art and Reality: The division of the film between colorful scenes (the play) and black and white (the reality behind the scenes) illustrates the intersection between real life and art. Art is shown as a tool to understand and express complex human experiences. 2. Immersion and Confusion Between Actor and Character: The actors' experiences merge with those of their characters (for example, Jones expresses that his heart hurts like Augie's; Jones burns his hand like Augie; Jones experiences the grief of Conrad as Augie experiences the grief of his deceased wife), highlighting how art can not only imitate life but become a part of it and affect those who create and consume it. 3. Grief and Loss: The theme of grief is central, represented by the death of the children's mother and the playwright. The asteroid and the alien symbolize the absurdity and inevitability of death, while the characters' reactions to grief reflect the diversity of human experiences in the face of loss. 4. Metaphor of Dream: The dream scene suggests that immersion in fantasy (the "sleep") is necessary to achieve a new understanding (the "awakening"). This may symbolize the creative process and the importance of engaging with fantasy and introspection. 5. Connection Between Art and Grief: Art serves as a means to process grief. The characters use the play to express and deal with their emotions, showing how art can aid in healing and understanding grief. In summary, "Asteroid City" is a reflection on how art and life mutually influence each other, especially in moments of great emotion and transformation, such as grief. Through this film, Wes Anderson seems to explore the power of art as a tool to understand and deal with the complexities of human experience.
Just an observation: the children all arrive with just one parent (and Tom Hanks' character, the grandfather also makes no mention of the, well, the grandmother). Even Tilda Swinton's only mentions one parent, her mother. What's up with that?
I deeply appreciate the nuance of this film and find this analysis extremely insightful, however I still didn’t love the film as much as other Wes Anderson films. My impression immediately after seeing this film was that it was ‘the time Wes Anderson tried to make a Wes Anderson film’. Some of the things I love so much about his other films are that it feels as though they take you on a wild journey across a wide array of different emotions and twist you around, whereas this film felt more like a small vibration, moving the story back and forth quickly and in a way that still created a lot of interesting emotions, but without the same depth as his other films. In the past I’ve loved how despite the 2 dimensional appearance of his images, the films have multiple dimensions that explore in depth so many different ideas. While this film also has numerous dimensions, their extreme closeness and the lack of differentiation between them flattens the feel of the film so that on a microscopic level it is colorful, but when you zoom out it presents only as one color. I appreciate how much this represents the feel of our current society with lines blurred and things moving rapidly but going nowhere, but at the same time I just wish there was a little more. Where Anderson’s previous films have been explorations, this felt more like a reflection. I miss that feeling of exploration, adventure and unknown from his previous films.
I’d only seen two of Wes Anderson’s movies so in preparation for Asteroid City decided to watch the rest in order (though I lost steam before Isle of Dogs.) It was so satisfying to see Wes Anderson truly in his bag with Asteroid City and to see the Jason Schwartzman collaboration come full circle.
You mention the visual style and meta-framing making everything feel more distant, but what really takes me out of this film are the dry and distant performances. Especially with Johansson and Schwartzman you get the sense that they're just tired of life and it makes you question why you're watching Asteroid City in the first place. Sure, it's nothing new that performances in Wes Anderson movies tend to feel somewhat removed from reality (because anything else would feel out of place), but at least previously, it has always felt natural. Just like having everything two levels removed from reality in this "set within a set" style filmmaking, I hope it isn't an emerging trend in his films to see actors basically playing themselves being bored with everything.
A RUclipsr making a video essay about a filmmaker making a film about a TV show, about the making of a play that also shows the play being performed. (insert Bwaaaarrrrppp inception sound here)
I never understood it and yet the actors had me very emotional in many occasions. Scarlet Johansen, Jason Shwartzman, and Margot Robbie (in all her 2 mins in the film) really came through with their acting chops on 10.
The part about their feelings, Tilda Swinton's character had that exact line: “I never had children, but sometimes I wonder if I wish I should have.” She doesn't wish she should have, she wonders if she should wish. It's a very fascinating layer of conditionals.
Yes I loved that very fitting for the intelligence of her character
I think that moment with the griddle is significant because Jones Hall actually burns his hand. We see Mercedes Ford break character and react honestly, because of course the actor is not supposed to actually burn his hand during the play. But the actor is experiencing very real grief over Conrad and does it.
I love this film so much. I think it's my new favorite Wes Anderson movie. I'm glad people are talking about it.
Yes absolutely I think that's what I was trying to get at you just said it more clearly haha
Yes that is what I get too, now. At the moment it felt really strange
they have a scene of Jones and Conrad discussing the scene before it happens in the ‘play’, they mention that sentiment of not knowing why it happens but knowing it has to happen.
very subtle but effective!!
love this film!
I think that - generally speaking - people do tend to talk about recent major movie releases. Just something I've noticed over the years.
But does he *actually* burn his hand? I'm guessing not, but I think it's deliberately made unclear
Something I'm beginning to love about Anderson is how his movies just casually put A-list actors within abstract masterpieces. It's somehow a completely different feeling to seeing them elsewhere.
And most of these actors have such a great time that they almost always come back regardless of the size of the part. They just want to be involved.
The #GREATEST #Actor on Planet Earth for the last 40 years is #BradHartliep - #GREATER than #TomHanks, #LeonardoDiCaprio, #RobertDeNiro, #JackNicholson, #ScarlettJohanson and EVERY single actor you can think of ..
"A-List Actors" is a bullshit comment - they don't f'ng exist .. the ONLY reason they are "a-list" actors is because they are ass-kissers to the #Hollywood #Elite - they #Brown-nose their way to the top of the ass-kissing ladder -- it has NOTHING to do with Talent or Capability as an Actor .. it's 1000% pure POLITICS and Nepotism and ZERO PERCENT qualification .. There are literally HUNDREDS of "a-list" actors with ZERO acting talent and hundreds of "a-list" directors with ZERO directing talent ..
I am Three Hundred MILLION times MORE #Talented and FAR GREATER as an #Actor than every single so called "a-list" actor -- and I absolutely GUARANTEE YOU that Saving Private Ryan and Greyhound and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and EVERY single movie that Tom Hanks or Jack Nicholson or DeCaprio or DeNiro appeared in would be 300 Hundred Million Times BETTER with #BradHartliep in the #LeadRole ..
It occurs to me that Brian Cranston appearing in the colour section actually broke 2 separate 4th walls. Not only did it break the 4th wall between Asteroid City the play and Asteroid City's production, but it also broke the 4th wall between Asteroid City's production and Asteroid City the TV show about the creative process.
From the perspective of the actors playing the characters in the play it's already confusing because he doesn't exist in their world, but the world of *their* actors, but from the characters point of view themselves Brian Cranston as an entity is beyond incomprehensible.
They stare at him dumbfounded until he leaves the frame at which point they promptly reject his existence, unsteadily returning to the conversation they were scripted to have. It's almost Lovecraftian to think about. That you could peel back the layers of reality and discover that you were just a character played by an actor, only to then realise THAT actors 4th wall had also been violated.
That was the funniest part of the movie for me
That's like ... 16 walls...
I was struck by the little smirking crack Hope Davis gives to ScarJo at the end of the scene about "I thought it might have been your ex-husband in Utah..." A reference to a previous scene her character wasn't in, definitely feels like an improvised moment between two theatrical actors after getting thrown off their rhythm. Kind of an "Okay, this scene turned into a shitshow... lets have some fun with it." moment.
Also, Cranston looks just as surprised as any other cast member when Augie/Jones/Jason storms offstage at the climax... looking at him with that same kind of "What are you doing here?" gaze.
thought this part was a lil corny
@@TestOfInsanityI was gonna say that lol
I think a great visual analogy for the layers of narrative and meaning in this movie is the billboard you can see at 9:10 - a billboard featuring a picture of a billboard, both of which feature the same scenery that's behind the billboard itself.
I was surprised to see a general consensus about the movie having more potential and let people down... It instantly became my favorite Wes Anderson flick. Maybe that's because I watched it in a theater that really only exists in my town to show old/indie/small budget moves and the theater just has so much charm it can make anything fun. Maybe it's because I really enjoyed the setting. But I was surprised to find that not as many people liked it. It felt small and self contained, yet had so much to unpack. My partner and I were talking about it the whole drive home and still bring it up in conversation today.
I saw a matinee show in an empty theater (just me and one other person ten rows away) and the same thing struck me. There's so many little things that speak to the ephemeral existence of things. In a small town theater, or at a lonely showing, I think you get that feeling already.
I had the exact same thing, I love this movie and when I finished the movie (the day it came out) I thought everyone would be as exited by it as I was, but that want the case
The alien scene was worth the admission for me
I agree. I loved it.
I got to see it in theater with a packed house, and was stunned to hear how audibly displeased people were with it at the end. Really strange reaction to meta text considering how anal we’ve gotten about finding the meaning in things as a species.
My friends and I adored it, though, but maybe because we handle our existential dread through TTRPG’s lol
Asteroid City is a beautiful analogue for how many neurodivergent people see the world. Speaking from my autistic experience, much of my life feels like I'm having to act in order to make connections with the people around me. And when everything is suddenly in complete chaos, all I desperately want to do is find out who *I* am - not the actor I've been conditioned to be, but who I naturally settle into being. And much of that personal narrative is explored through taking myself out of "the scene" (i.e. a conversation with a coworker) and hyper-analyzing my motivations behind or even beyond the moment. Seeing a bunch of actor-characters struggle to find the "right way" to receive information and act in kind, while simultaneously acknowledging this shared meta-reality with everyone else in the film, was such a unique, refreshing, and emotionally resonant experience that Asteroid City has quickly become one of my favorite movies in recent memory. A beautiful example of a movie that isn't made for everyone, but if you are in the target audience, it feels overwhelmingly like it was MADE FOR YOU.
Thanks for sharing, I appreciate this incite.
I how the line "It doesn't matter. Just keep playing, you're doing it right" (paraphrasing) fits into this for you.
As a fellow autistic, I love how all of Wes Anderson's characters feel autistic. They stare directly at each other, say exactly what they mean, often in a fast paced, blunt style that I relate to deeply. They're direct when doing something and don't mince words. It makes me feel seen, even if that wasn't his intention.
That's an interesting angle I didn't consider. I'm autistic myself and also experience this phenomenon but can't really say that the movie or its characters reminded me of it while watching, probably because I was waiting for the actual meaning of everything to "click" for me, which I guess is one of the points it was making lol
I think that feeling could be anyone. We all feel like that at times.
Fun Fact: At one point, a radio off-screen plays Slim Whitman's "Indian Love Call", the song that killed all the alien invaders in Mars Attacks!.
I feel like this is Anderson's mid-life crisis movie. I feel like he has been asking himself big questions, so he expressed his feelings of existential uncertainty on the script, where he goes extremely meta right from Bryan Cranston's opening monologue right to the end.
I admit I wasn't sold on this movie when I first saw it--but it wormed its way into my consciousness. I can't stop thinking back to it. I think it was the line "It doesn't matter, just keep telling the story" that, to put it academically, rocked my shit.
Just keep swimming as Dori said. Just keep on going.
@@vibesmom SSSSHHHHHHhhhhh dont point out cliches are cliches around here.
@@Odb718it’s all about context
Just finished the movie about an hour ago and this single, small line hit me with the most profound feeling. Very well done.
ah, Sophisticated As Hell, i see! neat!
I always took the meaning of the movie to be about loss and grief and "how do i move on" and getting tangled up and not remembering how you used to live, then something reminding you (margot robbie scene) about why you do what you do it all, and you just gotta keep doing it
My take on the “message” here is that there doesn’t always need to be a message. The visual artifice can sometimes be just that- spectacle. Art and the message of art is driven just as much by the audience as it is the artist themselves. I walked away feeling almost hollowed by the message, centered around not just “finding meaning” in art, life, etc., but also coming to terms with the fact that not everything has meaning in art, life, etc.
I’ve seen it 3 times now and each time I felt more and more sad. This is pinnacle Wes Anderson, imo.
The most "there is no message" part has to be the running shootout. The same two cars and a motorcycle go past three times, guns blazing, and no one ever reacts. We never learn what's going on and are left trying to make sense of something that simply doesn't have a meaning. It's absurd and I love it.
I think you're right, and I think that this point is made especially clear by the fact that all events we see are fiction, even within the world of the movie. The documentary is stated to be about a fictional production. The struggles of Jones [Augie's actor] aren't real, they've been created for the purpose of the documentary. We're watching actors playing actors playing actors. And yet, even though it's made explicit that this story and its events are not real [even within the world of the documentary], we can still relate to it and find meaning in the story being told.
I think the reason that the movie frustrates a lot of people is because there's an inherent clash between that side of the film, the side that feels like such an obvious answer it's almost hitting us over the head, and the entire rest of the movie that really feels like it's trying to say something. The question they ask is "Am I really supposed to believe there's nothing more to this movie when every single line that's said seems to have at least 3 different meanings, and nearly everything that happens only makes any sense at all if you consider it's just a metaphor you don't understand yet?"
I think that juxtaposition is on purpose, and is more to the point of the film than either part individually, but I just can't figure out how they go together. The meaninglessness and the meaning are both important parts of it, and discounting the meaning and saying the point is that there isn't any message or meaning is missing half the film, but discounting the meaninglessness is also missing half the film, but how can you try to make a point out of meaninglessness when the point is that there is no meaning and how can you reconcile that with the half of the film that has meaning when meaning is inherently opposed to meaninglessness and AAAAAAAAAAGAHAHBKJSHFGINRGSG
This movie is hard to think about it hurts my head
I was thinking though, even if it's not Auggie's "real" struggle, he seems to be conveying something real from his experience of life. Yet another layer!
Although I think the line about "just keep telling the story" is authentic on all levels. In a weird way it's an anti-suicide film. It encourages the audience to keep going.
I am an emotional man, and I am okay with that. I often cry during movies with really good scenes, but I usually feel it coming on. When Augie said he didn’t know the meaning of the play and the director told him it didn’t matter, just keep telling the story, I instantly began to cry and had to pause the movie. I’ve never been so simultaneously blindsided and affirmed and destroyed and reassembled.
I felt a lot of different things during the movie. Some parts are sad, some funny, some touching... but there's a strong resonnance beetween the confusion of the spectator, the confusion of the actors (of the play) and the confusion of the characters (in the play). (And there's maybe another layer, the actors of Wes's movie that are also a possible target of all this, are playing a movie and showing feelings while not understanding what is this all about)
Having all these layers muddle even more the distinction between the spectator and the movie and makes you part of the global experience in a stronger way. The fact that you feel what the characters feel and that you are (as spectator) as confused as the characters made everything even more relatable.
Things happen, we feel stuff. We don't always know why or how to respond, most of the time we just keep going. That's part of life.
Yeah, the operative word is "confusion".
This movie managed to make me feel like I was in a movie more successfully than any other experience I’ve had
I don't think that's a good thing. It means you were being taken out of the emotional experience of watching a movie.
I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of what a director wants to make you feel
@@51gan788 Feeling something, anything is a good outcome for most of the people who stumble through life.
@@51gan788not when that director is wes anderson
@@51gan788exactly? It defeats the purpose of art.. I don't see how clever it is... This maybe equivalent to a bad movie where you are aware that you're in a movie, and you have feelings about that awareness...
@@sgopalan58 or maybe, just maybe, different directors have different intentions and nothing "defeats the point of art" in a blanket way
I’ve seen Asteroid City 4 times, 3 in theaters and 1 at home. I still don’t feel as if I completely understand it, but I do very strongly feel that it is not only the best film of the year, but one of the greatest American motion pictures of all time. In the coming decades I hope to see Asteroid City rightly regarded as the astonishing creation it is.
If you watch closely on the balcony scene, Augie actually said "It's you, the wife who played my actress" which sounds wrong because it's supposed to be "It's you, the actress who played my wife". Glitches like this happens when the character is deep in their personal problem. Same thing happened when the narrator, played by Bryan Cranston, appeared in color in one of the scene where Midge's (Scarlett) method acting bit (the greasepaint on her cheek) is questioned for the second time by the cookie trooper mother, the first time is by Augie. Also the mother talks about Midge's second ex-husband in Utah when just in a couple previous scene, Midge tells Augie about it in one of the window scene.
I see the two separate worlds in the movie (the play and the movie set) as the repserentation of the human world and the heaven (or at least the dream world) because of how the director and the writer acts like gods who wrote and made the story and then just leave it be, even the director is sleeping while the play is till on going, not intervening in the play. It is only when Augie enter the dream world/heaven that he can consults with god (the director) about what is the meaning of it's heart broken life and then the director doesn't really gives him the exact answer that Augie wanted but instead tells him to keep on living and being himself because that's the meaning of life itself, it is lo live. Also it is in this dream/heaven world that Augie met his supposed dead wife.
Oh and one last thing, on the last scene, Augie overslept and missed everyone leaving the city because in the dream world/heaven, he missed his cue on the play by talking to the actress on the balcony scene. You can't wake up if you don't fall asleep.
I don't think the ex husband thing was a glitch, I think it was just meant to be a joke about obsessive fans knowing too much about celebrities lives
People talking about Christopher nolan being complicated but wes anderson outdid it
Nolan just wishes he is complicated and wants people to think he is complicated. He is anything but. That’s why always the $$$ spent on advertising his latest “technical” experiments. A soulless creator. Not sure why his name is even next to Wes’ at all, unless to show the difference between an artist and a… salesman?
Nolan is the faux complexity, what seems deep and isnt really, and he's catering to pretentious hipsters who can feel better about 'being smarter for understanding his movies'.
Wes Anderson movies actually have depth.
As pretty as Nolan's movies are, they are rather shallow, especially Tenet which seems like it has a lot of depth, when in reality the story is just told in an overcomplicated way to make people feel like the movie is deep.
The only difference between some high budget action flick like Marvel or a Bay movie and a Nolan movie, is that those are honest about what they are, while Nolan movies pretend to be something they arent. Which is deep. They are just pretty summer blockbusters.
@@cinexeonit’s not a competition. Your guy’s movies aren’t better because you shit on somebody else’s movies. You don’t get to define what an artist is.
@@nemtudom5074there is a pretty significant amount of irony to saying “ he is catering to pretentious hipsters who can feel better about being smarter for understanding his movies” and then immediately following that up with “Wes Anderson’s movies actually have depth” .
Guys what the fuck they're both really great
The way you used your own meta framing device to support your explanation was very clever. You say “I’m tired, and I’m not really sure my point is getting across,” maybe because you actually feel that way, but also to demonstrate a difference but also a connection between the “you” who is a confident narrator/RUclipsr voice, itself unsure that it was getting the point across, and a “you” that is more private and personal. Meanwhile, the point you’re trying to make is about how, in the film, the actors (Johansson/Schwartzman) inform their characters, who are also actors that inform their characters, all of whom are searching for the meanings in their lives and jobs.
Whoa... missed that one. I noted it, but did not integrate it into the narrative.
Thanks.
Asteroid City had so much potential. The insights were spot on. We can all tell for certain that you've made this fairly easy to digest from an audience's perspective.
6:18 I think You are reading something that isn’t there. The actor playing the alien is saying “ I have to figure out what the metaphor is because it’s not explicit in the text of the script of the play.” That is why the tenses are mixed. Because preparation for the play is continuous but the script is a static thing that already exists and has an end. It’s not a mixture of actor and character . It’s just actor saying 1 part of the creative process (the script) is done. But another part of the creative process (the actors interpretation) is not.
And it's also a meta-commentary that the movie (by WA) never really explains what the alien means.
Fantastic video.
I watched this movie 4 times, but you managed to pinpoint probably the biggest reason why this has grown to be one of my favorite ever movies- better than I ever could have.
I love the ending of your video especially, with all of the hints at the movie- you even managed to include Augie’s “sometimes I sometimes feel” at 11:24 - really amazing work!
It’s definitely one of my favorites, but to pick one is a tall task. They are all so different. One commonality is we always get to see Wes in the movie. His essence, his smile during a certain scene. It permeates the text, and I love that. It gives me so much to enjoy on my inevitable rewatches.
David Lynch does that for me too. At times I’m watching a scene and I can see his joyous, giddy, expression in my mind. It’s attention to every detail because they all matter.
In other words, we're watching "A dude playing as a dude disguised as a another dude"
Not sure if anyone else is seeing it but maybe the play is also a reflection on real-life actors and their craft. We literally get a lot of backstage that shows us how actors search for their characters, how their life influences their work, etc. Anderson has been in the theater/movie sphere for so long, he must have a ton of insights and philosophy on that
I can't say it's my favorite Anderson movie (that title is forever held by Fantastic Mr. Fox), but I appreciate it a lot
Thomas Flight, in his own script for this video, made his speaking sound like the characters sound in the film: "I sometimes believe I sometimes do this" and "I think it's tempting to think this" and "What we are feeling is feeling like..."; brilliant stuff.
Thanks for this. I watched the movie for the first time yesterday, followed immediately by the “Beyond the screenplay” podcast episode about it - it was great to hear their comments and now yours. I loved the movie, and your interpretation of the “you can’t wake up if you don’t fall asleep” line is way.m better than what fuzzy notions were floating around in my brain. Thanks for this!
This film is so bloody mindboggling. It's almost a commentary on commentary itself. It's not just _meta_ , it's _meta-meta_ .
It’s not really that mind boggling. It’s not hard to comment on your art with in your art. It just means you are uncomfortable with sincerity.
@@hastyscorpionSelf-awareness doesn’t absolve you of your wrongdoings, but it also doesn’t make you insincere.
4:36.
Yes, and the black eye is her response to the director advising that she relies on her beauty too much.
This is the first good analysis video I’ve seen of this film. You gained a subscriber.
Best film of 2023.
This was amazing. Asteroid City is one of my favorite movies of the year
His entire filmography is one of using other forms of media to create a fourth wall in the narrative, but using the components of the adopted media of other art forms to highlight how it's a bit of a farse to ignore the fact that art is performative.
All his characters use their art to be their identity because meaning is a desperate need for all humans. Whether watching a play, documentary, film, or listening to music you seek that validation but can only have get it from the artiface. People are the only saving grace. But we almost always find our path through art.
This is why Wes Anderson is brilliant.
"I don't know yet. We never pin it down" Brilliant picking out of the weird feeling of that line
The film is joyful in its use of absurdism - yet so deeply profound. For me, Anderson's message is non-dual -- it hits us on the head that the reality we have constructed for ourselves is just story, just another dream layer. The actors themselves shout, "you can't wake up if you don't fall asleep." Most people live their lives asleep to the fact they are just a created character in a story. Just a single example: Johansson's character is referred to many times as being a comic genius, yet there is no time when we actually see this for ourselves - there is no true experience of it, it is just a story everyone repeats.
No idea why everyone started hating on the movie when it first came out. The first time I saw it, I thought it deserved to be up there with 2001: A Space Odyssey!
Who else saw the first thumbnail and prepared for their lunch break to see a new one.
I know why they change but it always catches me off guard lol
Excited to watch the video after I see asteroid city this evening.
Every youtuber has a moment of post-posting clarity where they suddenly think of the perfect thumbnail
A superb video that articulates many of the best points my circle of friends have raised with an editing panache we lack the time to develop. Allow me to list a couple of observations we've made that I believe tie in to the major strokes illustrated here.
1) There's an extra layer to the entire story that I haven't seen many pick up on, which is the unnamed and undefined cast of actors inbetween the "Conard Earp" world and our reality. Conrad Earp is a fictional character being portrayed, not directly by Edward Norton, but by an unknown actor who is in turned played by Ed. The only character we ever meet on this layer is The Narrator, as portrayed by Bryan Cranston, a very unique character. He presents the supposed writing of Asteroid City as a play, with all of its characters fictional and portrayed by actors - these are the ones played by the real life actors, highlighting just how many layers of dense refraction the ultimate drama shines through.
2) Midge Campbell / Mercedes Ford / Kim has a special role as the most heavily layered "charactor" in the narrative. It's Scarlett Johannsen, portraying an unknown actress, portraying Mercedes "Kim" Ford, portrayed Midge Campbell, who at last in part portrays a grief-stricken secretary in the 20s/30s looking for a divorce. In this regard she is the opposite of The Narrator, who is just a standard mono-layered character by Bryan Cranston - by studying these two we can learn a lot about how true personality transmits through the layers of fiction.
3) Pay very close attention to eyes and vehicles. These are the two most important symbolic devices throughout the entire movie. When you understand what they mean both individually and in tandem, to "take a ride through the eyes", you'll have a great grasp on that cryptic near-ending phrase "You can't wake up if you don't fall asleep".
Just left a comment where I also discussed your first point. I think a lot of people miss this because it's stated within the opening line of the movie and never brought up again, but it personally resonated with me very strongly to watch the film with the understanding that none of the events depicted ever took place in the world of the unnamed actors. It feels like it should devalue the emotional impact of the events we observe, if it's all fictional. But I think that's specifically why Wes Anderson would include it; to highlight that the events being fictional does not devalue their emotional influence.
Only noticed watching this that during the crater madness where Augie steps through the door does that scene actually look like a play with people flying on wires, different actors doing different version of chaos, and the set suddenly looks fake.
Until then Asteroid City looked "real"
i remember sitting in the movie theatre with my friend watching this movie, and breaking down sobbing during the balcony scene between the two actors. my friend, at the end of the movie, asked why I started crying so much, because she was much more confused about the whole thing than i was. i was hit very hard by this movie, in many different ways, as both an actor and a writer, and especially as a person just confused by the world I'm still trying to newly navigate as a sophomore in college. this movie helped me understand things in life a bit more, and quickly became one of my favorites. thank you wes anderson, and thank you thomas for making this video diving into it. great stuff!
I hate the fact that you cried about an uncertain world but nevertheless I think this will be a good lesson and character building moment for the youth of the Western world . The looming recession , global conflict, internal division, etc. Typical struggles that happen in 3rd world countries caused by the Western world.
I got hit quite hard by this particular scene as well. And I'm a middle age man from China. That's the magic of theatre or let's say art. When done right, It often kindly reflects on the universal suffering without our mind consciously acknowledging it (which is the reason why your friend got all confused). However, body recognises it, subconsciously. Therefore, you cried. So did I. I'm grateful Mr. Anderson have brought us such an incredible piece of art.
@@analyticalmindsetwtf is your problem?
@@asellandrofacchio7263 it's pretty obvious, western privilege built off the suffering of people from the third world like myself. It will be good for westerners to struggle a bit with the way the world is shifting. It will build their empathy and compassion in mass. Obviously there are a select few with this empathy already.... but I. Am talking about in mass
After watching this, it’s making me finally ask a question that I’ve been wanting to ask about your videos: what do you read in relation to filmmaking? If you do, why not mention them? This essay made me think of Deleuze’s Cinema books, Branigan’s exploration of the POV shot, Feuer’s discussion of musicals and dreams, and so many other film books and articles. I love your work, but I’ve been feeling mixed for a while (especially with the metamodern videos). I think you do great work, so these questions and critiques are mainly things I’m noticing as a film and media academic.
The short answer is if I'm not mentioning it I probably haven't read it.
I'm aware of Deleuze's work a bit but haven't read any of those sources you mention. If my thinking on a film or subject is heavily influenced by someone's writing I generally try to cite it directly. But I don't do much extensive reading on film theory per-se. In general I've read/absorbed much more general philosophy and media theory (McLuhan, Neil Postman, John Berger, Eisenstein, David Bordwell, Zizek, Camus, Baudrillard, etc) the truth is I'm not writing in an academically rigorous way, but I'm also not an academic and not trying to operating in any kind of academic capacity. In the Metamodern video I do cite in the description every direct source that I used for that video, the rest is just me apply the understanding I gained via those sources. Hope that clarifies.
Totally get it! There are film theory writings that definitely isn’t digestible and way out there for your videos (Deleuze and the ones you mentioned being great examples 😅)
Some of my fav books and articles recently have been from makers perspective or about practice (Eisenstein, Deren, Tarkovsky, Walter Murch, many French directors). I wanted to ask because a lot of the questions and observations you make remind me of writing or commentary I have read or am reading for exams.
Thanks for the reply! I usually share your Parasite Video Editing if I use the film in class for editing
Deleuze is to win@@ThomasFlight
Something I don't see people mention often is the fact that the play "Asteroid City," even within the world of the documentary, is an entirely fictional production. There is no play called "Asteroid City." It exists entirely within the context of the documentary. The death of Conrad didn't actually happen, Jones' grief isn't actually real; they're actors playing actors.
I think this is really important to consider when trying to interpret the film as a whole, because people tend to narrow in on the meaning of Jones and Conrad's relationship, while forgetting that Jones himself is also an actor, and did not really experience any of the events the documentary discusses. I think this illustrates part of Wes Anderson's intentions here though, because while these events are entirely fictional, we can still relate to and derive personal meaning from their experiences. I think this is meant to be an allegory for how media can be used to process complex emotions [my personal interpretation of "can't wake up if you don't fall asleep"], and that "fiction" doesn't make the emotional impact any less legitimate or personally real. "Asteroid City" never happened on any meta level, and yet the experiences depicted can still resonate with us.
I think this also ties into the suggested importance of the audience in interpreting the film, re: "just keep telling the story." It's okay if you don't know what it means, and it doesn't necessarily have to have a concrete meaning, because it will resonate with somebody and that alone is important. Because media is important, even if it's not real.
Movies are about showing, not telling. A screenplay doesn't usually give you direct access to a character's moment-by-moment internal monologue (unless it breaks that fourth wall for a "Strange Interlude" confession or employs voiceover narration), so most of what's communicated to the viewer comes from the behavior of the actors and the way they are presented within the frame -- within a shot, or through the juxtaposition of multiple shots. The characters may say what they're thinking or feeling, but they also may not be fully honest or even aware of what they're expressing. In fact, they may not necessarily be in a position to know or understand what they mean or what they're feeling. Or they may just be lying. Or the image may be giving us a context for questioning what we're seeing. So, Midge explaining that her cosmetic black eye was an external manifestation of her character's internal state (for rehearsal purposes) makes perfect sense. Feelings made visible. That's what movies are. That's what acting is. That's what storytelling is.
For me, "Asteroid City" felt flat (not in a good way) on first viewing, but you've prompted me to give another go when I might be more receptive. Thanks for that.
I'm pretty sure that I thought this movie was a masterpiece and one of my favourites of Wes Anderson... Emotional on so many levels, hilarious, beautiful. Totally shocked because I actively disliked Isle of Dogs and French Dispatch and came in expecting this to be "self-indulgent Wes Anderson". Don't know how you could say there was no story or emotions in this one!
I feel that as well about it being very self indulgent, there was too much stuff going on, so many layers. It reminded me that other movie “Synecdoche, New York” which was not so fun to watch.
I like the two that you disliked way more than this one, which was kind of meh for me xD
It’s got a ton of good elements but it feels half baked in a lot of ways.
I really feel like it failed to explore nearly every theme it seemed to, a lot of his defenses feel a little like trying to justify deficiencies in the script. Like claiming that some lines are written like it’s a writer’s first take at a line, I don’t think it’s that deep or necessarily intentionally linked to the other elements of the story in most cases, he’s just never been good at writing natural dialogue.
A film doesn’t need great dialogue to be successful but I really feel that asteroid city only explores its themes at surface level throughout the run time because it’s constantly hopping to a new theme, the audience could almost forget about the themes around grief for much of it, which feels like it should be a crucial plot element since conversations around it capped off the start and end.
The way it wraps up too feels unfinished, the characters really go through very little development, and you could say that’s intentional but that’s also why a lot of people left unsatisfied.
Also isle of dogs is indeed his worst film, but I would rank French dispatch and basically everything else he’s done above asteroid city from a storytelling standpoint. Visually, asteroid city is beautiful and I wish the other elements supported the strong art and visual direction. Even the soundtrack was pretty lackluster imo, it feels just a single arpeggio through the entire film’s runtime. Another element that felt half finished.
I feel like this movie was, in a lot of ways, Wes Anderson feeling the need to outdo himself in his Wes-Andersoneyness. I thought it was interesting and pretty, but if his goal was to evoke a certain sense of the deep-rooted reality that acting and production is based off of, then he didn’t really do it in a very understandable way.
I feel like another layer is Anderson directly commenting on his own work. So much has been said about how he uses theater like visuals and artifice to create distance, and then suddenly things get real and emotional. I think this is being said outright when the lighting and colors get the most real and everyone says "You can't wake up if you don't fall asleep"
This is Anderson saying directly how he makes films. He puts us to sleep with pretty visuals and cute staging and then wakes us up with something real.
here's another wall for you: I bumped into jason schwartzman hanging out at the mall outside the theater right after watching this film
I second all of this! My favorite parts I think were the moments of doubling or foreshadowing? Not sure how else to explain it but you reference it with the quickie griddle, there's also the part where Midge says she'll probably end up committing suicide in the bathtub and then we see what looks like that at first. I think my favorite scene is the one with Margot Robbie. I agree, this movie is really hard to explain, difficult to peel back all the layers, but it's genuinely incredible. Also the title screens? If we think of those in real life, I could see those being something we'd add in our minds when remembering our lives. Like okay these are the years I was in high school, then college. But I could also see those being important to the pandemic and how it has warped our general sense of time. Especially how one of the last title/scene cards says "to be played without interruption" that feels very much like what life has been like the past year or so. Not sure where I'm going with all that, but yeah! Great video
I'm teaching a course in Existentialism and trying to convey to students what Heidegger means by truth and un-truth in art, the way being/existence is revealed through art that both reveals and conceals reality. You do a really good job at getting at that concept here.
I think what this movie is about is summed up in the phrase, "You can't wake up, if you don't fall asleep". The "you" is consciousness -- the part of universal consciousness that is currently experiencing this reality (or this play). "Waking up", of course, is becoming aware, or enlightened. Transcending this reality. The "if you don't fall asleep" part is the idea that when we (consciousness) enter this reality we must do so with total amnesia and no memory of where we come from. We must be totally immersed in the reality (or this play) or our experiences will lack honesty. Thus, we must "fall asleep". Falling asleep or becoming totally immersed in this reality is the only way consciousness (we) are going to grow and become "aware" (or wake-up). This is what I think this movie is all about.
The fact that you told your piece in black and white as well as in color using B-roll footage of the shoot to elaborate on the staging of a play inside a play by making it a play within a play within a movie that exists within your essay is not lost on us. ❤
With Asteroid City I learned that a movie can be too meta for me. Right from the beginning the movie tells us that the actual plot and the city are not important and unreal and basically sidelined. The effect it had on me is that I didn't really care about anything. Even though the characters are amazing and played soo well, I didn't care about them and mostly felt nothing. My mind was engaged and I thought about the meaning of everything.. But ultimately I mostly felt bored :D
I assumed that Jason Schwartzman as Jones Hall really did burn himself within the play because of his grief over the death of Conrad Earp. And it shocked Scarlett Johansson as Mercedes Ford so much that he really did it that she broke character.
Beautifly said as always.
I also really loved this movie and you've given me some really interesting things to think about next time I watch it and all the time until then.
When I saw it the first time, one of my takaways was about the framing itself and to me it felt like Wes created basically a "Bottle Epsiode" and he created a story that would push on the the bottles walls as much as he could. By making the A story be a Play he's able to step away from the bottle while still keeping it in frame, or maybe staying inside a bigger bottle.
I'll fully admit that's fairly likely not the impetus of the play but I think it's at least something valid to mull over in regard to the movie. After all one of the coolest things about art is interpetation.
I still don't understand the movie
"and sometimes I think I can sometimes feel that coming through the screen" - very good, I saw that
I felt about this movie like I did Thor: Love and Thunder. It's dudes who've been doing variations on the same thing for years. If I had seen this before Rushmore or had seen Thor 4 before What We Do in the Shadows, I'd probably adore them. It's just more of the same though. It's like Madden or Call of Duty. It's like the third Jack Johnson album. You hear the same acoustic guitar doing the same things and even though those things are well put together they feel tired.
asteroid city feels like a cinematic answer to mid-century absurdist playwriting, and it's why i both love the film but see so many people come at it from the wrong angles. this is precisely the right angle.
I interpreted augie burning his hand as a commentary on criticism of "it doesnt make sense for the character to do this, why would they do that"
Sometimes there does not need to be a reason. People do things for no reason all the damn time.
In my first view, I thought it was one of the Wes Anderson films I liked the least, but after watching this, I will certainly give it another chance with a second view. Great vid 🎉
Paul Newman and Robert Redford acting together had that meta feeling on different levels.
This did feel like Wes Anderson's INCEPTION. I enjoyed it (as I always do his films), though I'm still ruminating on the overarching intent. After this film in particular, I was left with the feeling that there was *more* there on a personal level behind what was happening on screen than the recent preceding films.
One aspect that does not get talked about nearly as much as it should is the queer subtext of the movie. Not only does Jones lose his boyfriend and can use that pain to portray something real through the character of Augie.
The fact that this movie takes place during the 50s during a phase where lgbtqa+ rights were under extreme attack (lavender scare) makes me think that he might only be able to express his feelings through art. Interestingly enough, he can express it through a more accepted heterosexual relationship. Even in the balcony scene, where he can talk one last time with Conrad is again through a more accepted heterosexual relationship. Art literally allows him to grieve and express himself in a way he probably would never be able to otherwise.
The movie makes us care for both of these people and makes their pain equal. I think that is a really powerful message, especially right now. Because you literally can't have Augie without Jones.
I notice with Wes Anderson I generally like his more abstract stories rather than his more earnest ones. I'm usually the opposite of that, but with Anderson's style it fits best. Grand Budapest would probably be the exception. But that film is his masterpiece.
this is much appreciated. I watched it last night and thought it was good, genuinely attempted to say something (s), was wildly entertaining, and retained that certain Anderson charm. admittedly, im not huge into Anderson but I thought it was enjoyable. I'm not entirely sure if the narrative (whatever of it) had any real impact on me but I do know I leave it with a few quotes ingrained into the mind.
"“I still don't understand what the play is about.” “It doesn't matter. Just keep telling the story" is something that will stay with me.
Titled like a cinemastix video
I've been thinking about this film a lot, and I really appreciate your explanation of it. You may have been tired, but your thorough and thoughtful explanation excited me even more about this film!
these are the reasons why Asteroid City might be my favorite Wes Anderson. a movie about the relationship between reality and performance/creation
I had to come here to RUclips since it’s not possible to comment (or like) on Nebula. Great video which I watched before and again after watching the movie. The one thing you didn’t mention when talking about the layers of the film is that the deepest level (below TV show and theatrical “making-of”), the play itself, is by far the most cinematic. It is really in this colour section that design, camera movement, editing, etc. are the most utilized and the most important. Though the set is limited, it is not limited in the way of a play, but in the way of a large soundstage build. It doesn’t feel like a play, though that is ostensibly what it is. Whereas the parts about the making of the play are presented in a much more theatrical way.
"What is Asteroid City about?" They ask.
"I have no idea" I reply, "But I enjoyed every second of it"
There is as scene in the movie where they're seated at a dining table and the colors are so stark it made me think of a Norman Rockwell painting.
Both myself and my boss love Wes movies and I saw Asteroid City first. Absolutely loved it. It smacked right up against Royal Tenenbaums for me as a near favorite for me. It was even better on the second viewing.
My boss was just "eh" on it. He said he just didnt connect with any of the characters and felt like the whole play aspect should have just been skipped. I dont think he really understood the background story.
Whilst i can appreciate this analysis, and actually found it really interesting, i felt the film itself to be dissapointing. The moment's you talk about of 'realness' failed to connect with me. Everything felt flat, and whilst the choices he made where interesting, everything somehow felt in the way of everything else. Maybe that was the point, maybe i just didn't get it, but the characters just weren't there for me at all.
I'm a huge Wes Anderson fan, but this movie, for me, felt more like a parody of a Wes Anderson movie.
It became to much, to meta, to convoluted.
Even with all his gimicks and quirks and whatnot, his movies had one coherent story that you could follow, just in his special style. And that is what I love.
Starting with french dispatch, he shifted away from that. Even the black and white portions in both movies took away a lot from his charme. His colour palette and composition is what makes his shots so beautiful. Being colourful is important.
They were both fine movies (french dispatch better than Asteroid city), but not what I love about his previous ones.
The photographer burns his hand to wake up. He needed the “sleep” made up of this wilderness of events that was his stagnation and grief or else he would never have burned his hand. Now because of burning himself on purpose, unexpectedly and un-premeditated, he is thus free of his belief in determinism. Romance doesn’t free him like in a Hollywood payoff scene. Pain is how he seeks freedom.
the lines that stuck the most with me were the final exchange between schwartzman's and brody's characters: "i need a breath of fresh air," "but you won't find one." sometimes i do need to step back and think about why things are the way they are, but this life shit keeps going.
It's funny that you immediately focus on the "I don't understand the play". I keyed in on that immediately first watch with the "why does my character burn his hand" line. I think it's Wes Anderson saying people are too focused on every little thing in a movie having to make perfect sense. Even the black eye makeup keeps switching eyes. I think it's a pretty high concept movie by Wes Anderson standards.
"cast into that uncertainty,.." Brilliant dude.
I saw it as a WA version of inception. Actors IRL playing actors (black and white scenes) playing actors (main narrative), coupled with the “You can’t wake up if you don’t fall asleep” mantra.
I recently had a bad trip on shrooms and it felt just like this movie, removing the fourth wall in writing and not visually, just with my own self
This movie feels like looking too closely at an impressionistic painting … too close analytically, and you can see brush strokes and the seemingly random colors, but if you step back and take in the whole perspective it begins to form a cohesive idea … ❤❤❤
I don’t understand how you cant love this movie. It is a play. Its a movie. A beautiful story that explains something but also nothing because it never happened, a story being told about the story that were watching
literally just finished watching this movie like 30 mins ago and then boom, a thomas flight video
I LOOVED YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE FILM
You have broken down this better than anyone. I kind of love this movie, but I need it to watch at home to understand it better
I’m not nearly smart enough I guess to appreciate how smart this movie and Wes Anderson think they are. I watched it on NyQuil and somehow stayed awake till the end. I’m thinking the two sleep inducers counteracted with each other and kept me awake.(the second one being the movie itself) I LOVED the visual style used to depict the non black and white scenes and my heart sank every time it flipped away from it AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. The ONLY other thing I will remember about this film is how funny I thought it was that Jeff Goldblum got credit for being the claymated alien. That was comic genius and would have been even better if they didn’t even include the one 3 second blink and you’ll miss it “scene” he was actually in. Anyway, this was all just too damn meta for this simpleton’s enjoyment.
I love you channel, Thomas! Thank you very much for the effort you put into it! 🤗
If you watch this movie with an unknown cast, you would say is crap.
This gets at what we mean by "true" and "real." The "real world" comes with constrictions that delimit how we understand and experience our existence. Fiction allows us, I think, to hold the "watchful dragons" in check; through fiction, we can get at reality and what's true in a way that the world outside the fictional world/narrative will not allow. The narrative grants freedom and allows what's true to pour in. It reminds me of something C.S. Lewis once wrote:
"I thought I saw how stories of this kind could steal past a certain inhibition which had paralysed much of my own religion in childhood. Why did one find it so hard to feel as one was told one ought to feel about God or the sufferings of Christ? I thought the chief reason was that one was told one ought to. An obligation to feel can freeze feelings. And reverence itself did harm. The whole subject was associated with lowered voices; almost as if it were something medical. But supposing that by casting all these things into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday School associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their real potency? Could one not thus steal past those watchful dragons? I thought one could.”
I know you said you weren’t sure if thee video was getting your thoughts across, but this really helped solidify this movie really connected with me. I absolutely loved the meta framing and the enotionak crutch of the movie wheen Scwartzman and Robbie talked about a "what if"
"I don't know how to explain that exactly"
I love the movie but damn, nothing summarizes the movie better than this line of yours...
Just had an insightful 50-minute voice conversation with GPT-4, telling her about Asteroid City (she wasn't familiar with the plot) and discussing its symbolism. Here's the summary she provided at the end:
"Asteroid City" appears to be a work that intertwines art, grief, and the relationship between fantasy and reality. The film explores how art reflects and affects life, especially in the context of loss and grief.
1. Art and Reality: The division of the film between colorful scenes (the play) and black and white (the reality behind the scenes) illustrates the intersection between real life and art. Art is shown as a tool to understand and express complex human experiences.
2. Immersion and Confusion Between Actor and Character: The actors' experiences merge with those of their characters (for example, Jones expresses that his heart hurts like Augie's; Jones burns his hand like Augie; Jones experiences the grief of Conrad as Augie experiences the grief of his deceased wife), highlighting how art can not only imitate life but become a part of it and affect those who create and consume it.
3. Grief and Loss: The theme of grief is central, represented by the death of the children's mother and the playwright. The asteroid and the alien symbolize the absurdity and inevitability of death, while the characters' reactions to grief reflect the diversity of human experiences in the face of loss.
4. Metaphor of Dream: The dream scene suggests that immersion in fantasy (the "sleep") is necessary to achieve a new understanding (the "awakening"). This may symbolize the creative process and the importance of engaging with fantasy and introspection.
5. Connection Between Art and Grief: Art serves as a means to process grief. The characters use the play to express and deal with their emotions, showing how art can aid in healing and understanding grief.
In summary, "Asteroid City" is a reflection on how art and life mutually influence each other, especially in moments of great emotion and transformation, such as grief. Through this film, Wes Anderson seems to explore the power of art as a tool to understand and deal with the complexities of human experience.
This might be the best video you've made, always so adept at articulating how complex and meta everything is
Just an observation: the children all arrive with just one parent (and Tom Hanks' character, the grandfather also makes no mention of the, well, the grandmother). Even Tilda Swinton's only mentions one parent, her mother. What's up with that?
I deeply appreciate the nuance of this film and find this analysis extremely insightful, however I still didn’t love the film as much as other Wes Anderson films. My impression immediately after seeing this film was that it was ‘the time Wes Anderson tried to make a Wes Anderson film’. Some of the things I love so much about his other films are that it feels as though they take you on a wild journey across a wide array of different emotions and twist you around, whereas this film felt more like a small vibration, moving the story back and forth quickly and in a way that still created a lot of interesting emotions, but without the same depth as his other films. In the past I’ve loved how despite the 2 dimensional appearance of his images, the films have multiple dimensions that explore in depth so many different ideas. While this film also has numerous dimensions, their extreme closeness and the lack of differentiation between them flattens the feel of the film so that on a microscopic level it is colorful, but when you zoom out it presents only as one color. I appreciate how much this represents the feel of our current society with lines blurred and things moving rapidly but going nowhere, but at the same time I just wish there was a little more. Where Anderson’s previous films have been explorations, this felt more like a reflection. I miss that feeling of exploration, adventure and unknown from his previous films.
I’d only seen two of Wes Anderson’s movies so in preparation for Asteroid City decided to watch the rest in order (though I lost steam before Isle of Dogs.) It was so satisfying to see Wes Anderson truly in his bag with Asteroid City and to see the Jason Schwartzman collaboration come full circle.
I watched in theaters 3 times trying to catch everything and find myself getting lost in the story. One of my favorite movies of the year
You mention the visual style and meta-framing making everything feel more distant, but what really takes me out of this film are the dry and distant performances. Especially with Johansson and Schwartzman you get the sense that they're just tired of life and it makes you question why you're watching Asteroid City in the first place. Sure, it's nothing new that performances in Wes Anderson movies tend to feel somewhat removed from reality (because anything else would feel out of place), but at least previously, it has always felt natural. Just like having everything two levels removed from reality in this "set within a set" style filmmaking, I hope it isn't an emerging trend in his films to see actors basically playing themselves being bored with everything.
A RUclipsr making a video essay about a filmmaker making a film about a TV show, about the making of a play that also shows the play being performed. (insert Bwaaaarrrrppp inception sound here)
I never understood it and yet the actors had me very emotional in many occasions. Scarlet Johansen, Jason Shwartzman, and Margot Robbie (in all her 2 mins in the film) really came through with their acting chops on 10.
This feels like the best version of the auteur “big meta epic” like Synecdoche NY or Beau is Afraid
The alien is the disconnect of death. Knowing it is happening but it's always feels very not real.