May 19, 2024

Wes’ ‘Fantastic Mr. Fox’ is a disloyal, affected, cutesy ripoff

Friday, December 4, 2009
Leo Shaw
Entertainment Editor

The prospect of adapting Roald Dahl’s classic story “Fantastic Mr. Fox” for the big screen through animation presented a golden opportunity to bring his extraordinary storytelling to life.

Unfortunately, Wes Anderson snapped up and then ungratefully squandered that opportunity in his stop-motion version, released Nov. 13 in select theaters.

To preface, it should be known that the original children’s book is a treasured story with plenty of its own strengths. Its dry, British humor and signature Dahlian plot turns would have lent themselves perfectly to any film version, had they been included.

The main problem with the movie, though, is not just that it isn’t like the book. Creative license is valid and expected in a project like this because an adaptation is just that, an adaptation. And yet, “mutilation” seems like a more accurate term for what Anderson has delivered.

The success of the project was doomed the moment Anderson decided to force “Fantastic Mr. Fox” and stop motion animation together into what can safely be called the overly orchestrated Anderson archetype, rather than dedicate his extensive talents to adapting the book’s actual plot, characters and wit to the screen. Other than Anderson’s own narcissistic conviction that he could do better, there was no necessary reason to omit these aspects.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is the logical continuation of Anderson’s downward directorial spiral: it demonstrates even more authoritarian control over the visual landscape, brings in the same group of smugly typecast actors, and stifles any original storytelling with snappy banter and predictable plot. The egocentric and aging alpha male, unloved and unappreciated son, and regular cast of colorful, oddly-named supporting roles are all here.

Their presence wasn’t even the worst offense, because it would all have been excusable had the story not supplied much of its own usable material. The greatest tragedy here is that Anderson chose to ignore a pre-existing trove of characterization, hilarious dialogue and expertly-woven plot so that he could use his own repetitive bag of tricks.

Only the middle third of the movie’s plot was taken from the book, with the beginning and end penned by Anderson and Noah Baumbach, director of 2005’s “The Squid and the Whale.” These were incongruously stitched together sequences of downright stupid action sequences and vomit-inducing scenes of fake family dysfunction that paled in comparison to the original content.

Adding insult to injury, the climactic sequence when Mr. Fox and his sons dig their way into each of the farmers’ storerooms was condensed into a pitiful montage set to a banjo-heavy southern-style ballad sung by Jarvis Cocker. And the book is set in the English countryside!

Apparently, even the movie’s basic continuity must submit to Anderson’s “vision.” And that’s not all: the book contains its own song, sung by Mr. Fox and Badger while they cart supplies back to their wives, about getting Mrs. Fox some “cider inside her inside.” But no, that wouldn’t do if a top indie songwriter like Cocker has a better idea.

The movie will be entertaining enough for those who haven’t read the book or for those who can still stomach Wes Anderson’s “creative” output (surely a demographic to be pitied). Rather than spend $12 on this sorry excuse for an adaptation, though, get an audio version narrated by Dahl himself and enjoy some real storytelling.

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is rated PG and is playing in select theaters, including the Landmark at the Westside Pavilion.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*