I have to admit, I haven't really enjoyed Wes Anderson's two latest releases. While I love his style, The French Dispatch and Asteroid City felt as if he had gone a bit overboard with it all. Focusing a bit too much on the style and as a result, the narrative suffering, leaving us with stories that felt a bit lackluster and perhaps not as thought-out as his previous stylised titles that pushed him into the public eye. When we think of some of his best titles, The Grand Budapest Hotel of course quickly comes to mind, because it had a wide range of highly unique characters that each contributed to the story in some way. I still enjoy his films, but they just lack that spark. His older titles were much less stylised and more character driven, and I feel that with this unexpected short film, The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, he has returned to those roots of mixing stylisation with character.
It seems a bit strange that Wes Anderson would agree to a short film that is 39 minutes in length, but the story is ultimately one that perfectly suits him. A short story written by Roald Dahl. This was a fairly famous author from Wales that most definitely had a stronger cultural presence in the past, and I'm sure most aren't all that familiar with his works these days. It's interesting to see Netflix throwing some money at a story of his, and even Wes Anderson who of course would demand a relatively larger budget in pursuit of the directing he's known for. But sometimes Netflix does these odd things. I still often remember the strange short film featuring David Lynch they released, about a criminal monkey that speaks English in a noir setting. So while I'm not particularly fond of Netflix as a company these days for a vast number of reasons I won't go into on this post, good for them for doing something a little different. I doubt Wes Anderson's fanbase alone will be enough to justify the cost of production.
The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar
Much like many of Wes Anderson's recent titles, they explore a character of significant wealth and power. But delving into the troubled minds of the wealthy as the realisation of fast and easy money sets in and the harsh reality of mortality enters. These characters are often quite interesting, people of lengthy stories and experiences but haunted by the passing of time, as their luxurious lifestyles grow mundane, and this is how we are introduced to Henry Sugar. The main story oriented around a man that has the ability to see things without the need for his eyes, capable of granting the power to cheat in gambling without every losing, albeit with some intentional mistakes here and there. This ability is obtained through a spiritual meditation, and passed down to another.
This story looks at the fragility of our complex minds, the ways in which we quickly grow used to the lack of challenge in life. How we grow tired of the familiar and how we need a drive, something to push us forward and keep us engaged in our day to day lives. Essentially, lacking purpose. Much of us find purpose in hobbies, learning a skill that we never quite master and feel fully satisfied with. But what would happen if you did grow capable of mastering those skills? Would you still enjoy them? This is the question that comes with the short film. I think it's pretty interesting, a simple question but one perhaps not all of us quite ask ourselves. From what I understand, this was a short story written by Roald Dahl, and it seems clear in the inspiration it holds regarding spirituality and a simple premise.
What I liked the most, though, was the directing. The unique way in which it told a story. Wes Anderson's films often have a narrator that tell us bits of context that help us understand the thoughts and actions of the characters as they move around the frame. In this instance, we are told the stort mostly directly by the characters in the frame. They pause, move towards the camera or stand centred as they talk to us directly. It's a very theatrical style of telling a story, as if to have the characters standing on stage. And this is amplified by the typical Wes Anderson use of depth within the scene, where the background often contains movement and characters as they go about their actions. Here, the film is shot much like it's a theatrical performance, as the background moves and changes often as the character talks to us directly.
This is where much of the focus and budget went, but I really didn't mind it. It was almost like listening to an audiobook given how little would take place in the scenes, how heavy the storytelling was with a direct narration. And much of this was done by Benedict Cumberbatch, who I have to admit I am not actually much of a fan of. Yet I felt for once he was cast well, and his accent and height played well into the story and its more luxurious elements. Dev Patel also had a significant number of lines, who again felt like he actually was given a role he'd be good at and have fun with. Though, as always, Ralph Fiennes makes a great display. Even with his older looking age, he still has that dynamic charm of off-the-hook and sophistication.
With its 39 minute runtime, I think it did everything it needed to. It wasn't too long to overstay its welcome and become something that was too stretched out. I feel Anderson's recent titles have suffered from this, being too long and just lacking story. Whereas this felt like the story really was the focus, and his style must complimented the visuals to add to it where necessary. And another bonus was a relatively small cast. Nothing too overboard and going into the realm of casting every possible A List celebrity to feature, just a handful of some known actors, one of the usuals. And nothing really more. Much of the rest is more implied with sound design, again adding to that theatrical performance and stage appeal. I didn't really expect it to be as good as it was, but I'm glad I gave it a chance after the disappointment of Asteroid City. If you're like me, well, you might just appreciate what this short has to offer.
