October 13, 2007
Have you seen Darjeeling?
Cindy and I saw The Darjeeling Limited last night, and our judgment of it is sort of on hold at the moment. But–speaking for myself from this point on, since Cindy may want to write about it herself–it does seem to be getting better as I look through my memory of it. At first it seemed to be a kind of pitch for a movie–a movie being made as a means of finding out what it was going to be, which appeals to the escalating fractal sense of means mirroring matter. Then it seemed to reduce a little too easily to the irony involved in “planning” to be enlightened. As Wes Anderson described the movie, it is “a very programmed, spiritual journey of enlightenment, with laminated itieneraries.” He also mentioned that accidents encountered along the way during filming were simply worked in.
The performances in the film are splendid in my view, and make the movie well worth seeing if only for that. But there are also scenes in it that are still resonating in my mind. The part played by Angelica Huston is particularly interesting, since her part demonstrates a family history that explains some things–but not the things all are most driven to know. And another scene, in which the three brothers attempt to save three children who are drowning in an irrigation channel, keeps coming back to me (I won’t say more about this part here in case you haven’t seen it yet). I have seen a number of negative reviews of the film–some demonstrating fine wit of the acerbic sort and keen obsrevations–but I think most of them reveal the limiting perspectives of the viewers more than anything else. Some rant about the poverty of India being simply used, in an insensitive way, as a backdrop for an empty journey made by empty Americans who are too spoiled to see what is passing before their eye. This strikes me as evidence of the affective fallacy: “I don’t like horror movies because they scare me,” and so on. I didn’t get the feeling that the culture of India was being ignored; in fact I thought that the contrast brought to it by the three glum hedonists allowed it to be seen in a way that many Americans never see it. Anyway, that’s my question and I’ll take my answer off the air….
comments
6 Responses to “Have you seen Darjeeling?”
okay, I’m not going to read this yet, until I’ve seen it, but I was under the impression it wasn’t going to come out until the end of the month?
Nope–it opened Friday here in Dallas. We saw it at the Angelica.
okay, kick ass.
okay, Daryl. We just got in from seeing it and I have to say that for at least the first third, if not the first 2/3rds I loved it.
almost perfect, in my estimation. I’m still letting my sense of the last of it sink in.
Amy pointed out a few moments that added to my appreciation of the last third, but I echo your sentiments.
Wonderful performances.
“Look at those assholes.”
I’m still thinking about it. Daryl has been giving the film some serious thought, resulting in insights that I think he should write in the form of a review or essay. His opinion of the film is growing (to the point that he told me yesterday he thinks it’s brilliant). I’m not so sure. I have this nagging sense that Anderson had the potential to make this into a truly profound film, but the subtleties and insights were reigned in in an effort to maintain commercial (and comic) appeal. I need to see it again. I want to be wrong.
“Look at those assholes.”
Deron– I’m so glad you and Amy got to see it right away. I think I will write something about it, but I want to see it again first–although I made some notes soon after seeing it and that has helped me in reconstructing it in my thoughts. I think it’s one of those films that is bigger than its general reception will indicate (for now), largely because it’s one of those works about which you could say “its end is its center.” This makes it hard for usual narrative structures to work with respect to closure. It is one big metaphor for the engine of Karma–a kind of mandala, in my view. In this sense it reminded me of many aspects of Groundhog Day, including the fact that many people see that film as simply a delightful little romantic comedy, while many others have embraced it as a masterful illustration of Buddhist thought.
I found myself thinking: We ask the world to show us who we are, and it does–but we don’t see it even when it hits us in the face. Owen has hit the dirt face first: we are born and almost instantly hit the dirt, but our lives writhe with patterns that are bigger than we are–that we keep trying to see more clearly by way of rituals and journeys. But you can’t go looking to fall in love, and you can’t find enlightenment by way of a map and a train schedule.
Some of the things I want to think more about are:
–The many metaphors of transport
–the many illustrations of proverbs ( as in the old Chinese proverb: In the course of a long life a wise man will be called upon to abandon all of his luggage more than once. Also, the shoeshine boy running off with one of Owen’s shoes calls to mind many Zen koans and proverbs (“The thief tries to get ahead, but steals one shoe,” and James Richardson’s aphorism: “What you give a thief is stolen”); and other more generally applicable proverbs, as in– “A donkey gone a’traveling never comes back a horse.”
–metaphors for cycles ( including the belt that keeps changing hands)
–the relation between the three brothers and the three boys (brothers?) swept away when the raft overturns.
–the importance of the scene in which a series of train cars is shown as sequential (part of the same train) when each car and even the location visible from each window is different.
–the relation between the three brothers and the Hindu gods Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.
Anyway–maybe I won’t write about it, since I have said so much here! But it will be fun to talk about it with those of us who are interested in such things.