This is how the story unfolded to me. The first thing that caught my attention was several movie bloggers were being flown to London for the premiere of the Fantastic Mr. Fox. Disclosed completely here, but bits of it were gleaned from Twitter and various other modes of communication. I wondered why the studio would foot the bill to send so many out there at once – it seemed quite unusual for a film that has a built-in audience and should do well, being that animated films almost always do well; families will take their kids to see these movies no matter what. And as one Twitterer put it, Wes Anderson is kind of a favorite son of the blogger/fanboy crowd and it seemed impossible they would not like the film, even sight unseen.
So what could be the reason? I couldn’t quite manage to get my mind around it in any satisfactory way – what would having a whole lot of blogs on your side mean? So, they’re off in London, visitin Roald Dahl’s home and tomorrow, Wednesday, they will see the Fantastic Fox at the London Film Fest.
Then the other shoe drops. This story in the LA Times puts out the idea that Wes Anderson “remotely” directed the film. Read all about it here. The outrage in the comments section here makes me think that this might be among the reasons for flying the bloggers out – head the bad press off at the pass. Do you think I’m right? Do you think it was a good idea? Do you think it helps or hurts the film? Maybe it’s just an odd coincidence.
Another possible reason for the coaxed migration could be that the film might be thought of as “too British” (but in a good way) and that having Americans out there to get a vibe for the place could help them to digest it better? Anyway, with so many prominent Americans doing the voices it’s hard to envision anyone thinking it too British.
Here is a bit of a review from the Telegraph:
The film’s setting is clearly British. It was produced in this country, largely at Three Mills Studios in London’s East End. And in homage to Dahl, Anderson and his co-screenwriter Noah Baumbach stayed at the author’s home, Gipsy Cottage, and used the legendary hut in his garden where Dahl wrote his famous children’s books, to complete their script. There are little tributes to Dahl scattered throughout the film: the decor of Mr. Fox’s study in the film and the objects lying around it recall Dahl’s real writing den.
Most crucially Anderson, a fan of Dahl’s books since childhood, had to persuade the author’s literary estate, headed by his widow Felicity, that he should be given permission to adapt Fantastic Mr. Fox for film. In his lifetime Dahl was critical of attempts to film his work (notably The Witches) and since his death in 1990 Liccy Dahl has carefully vetted interested film-makers.
Finally, the last reason I could think of was that The Fantastic Mr. Fox and Where the Wild Things Are, two children’s classics, are hitting theaters kind of around the same time. By getting all of this online publicity they can help distinguish one from another.
Can good buzz be generated by good will? If the movie is great none of this will matter.
21 Responses for "The Fantastic Fox Caper"
The best bit from the LA Times article:
Not everyone could muster a magnanimous word for Anderson’s M.O. — especially his on-set absence. “I think he’s a little sociopathic,” cinematographer Oliver said. “I think he’s a little O.C.D. Contact with people disturbs him. This way, he can spend an entire day locked inside an empty room with a computer. He’s a bit like the Wizard of Oz. Behind the curtain.”
Informed of Oliver’s discontent, Anderson said: “I would say that kind of crosses the line for what’s appropriate for the director of photography to say behind the director’s back while he’s working on the movie. So I don’t even want to respond to it.”
Sociopath!? Yikes.
Anderson is a fraud who couldn’t give a shit about the outcome of this project. His comments in the article make it obvious he’s never been close to this film.
MEMO to everyone out there who wants to direct a movie. YOU CAN’T DIRECT A MOVIE WHEN YOU’RE NOT ON SET BECAUSE YOUR BEING ON SET HAS A DIRECT INFLUENCE ON THE WORK OF YOUR CREW. WHAT DO YOU THINK IT SAYS TO EVERYBODY ELSE WHEN YOU DON’T WANT TO EVER BE ON YOUR OWN SET?
This guy is a joke. At least, as it is mentioned in one of the article, Tim Burton credited the other actual director who was on the set.
Anderson is way to much overrated anyway. I never quite got why such a pretentious and mediocre director could become so trendy.
The only good news about this story is that, if he really doesn’t have anything to do with the film as he wasn’t on the set, the film could actually be at least better than his previous works.
I work in animation – working on a rather large, costly animated film right now. The director isn’t here today – in fact he travels quite a lot. Do you think that makes him less of a director because the animators don’t stop working when the director is away….this is a bullshit article and I think it takes advantage of the reader.
Filmboymichael,
Yes. I think your director should be on set with you guiding you to make a film instead of sitting in an airport getting an email from you saying, “Hey, what do you think about this?” And he replies back “Looks good. Go with that.”
If that’s what your director does, then he is not a director.
Oliver is a friggin’ cry baby who has worked as a cinematographer on exactly two feature films. It’s pretty clear from this little bit of studio propaganda
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/the-fantastic-mr-fox/featurette-cutting-edge
that Anderson was deeply involved with the whole thing, he just wasn’t in the room. Big deal. Other than holding Oliver’s hand, what difference would his physical presence have made?
It’s great ammo for people who are already predisposed to disliking Anderson, but otherwise it’s meaningless gossip.
None of this matters. It’s what the finished product is that matters. Let reviewers and viewers decide for themselves and all this behind-the-scenes stuff is just chatter. Maybe the film will be brilliant. Who knows?
Here is why this matters, being involved in a multi-million dollar production, you have got to be there, because being a director is as much about being a leader as it is the final product, and you have to lead on the field, not from flippin Paris.. otherwise it is just for your ego.
I don’t buy that it isn’t important to be there because he’s an amateur — so why tke the project in the first plce? Remember all those behind the scenes when Peter Jackson was on lord of the rings, he was immersed on the field, socializing with cast and crew and being the leader. Jackson isn’t an expert make-up artist, or computer effects guy, or actor himself, yet he was there, sweating with the crew… 90 % of life is showing up.
I think this mainly confirms that Anderson is a sh*t, as we can see, made three good movies then became too full of himself. Directing from an iphone in Paris is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard… it is an egotistical, disrespectful thing to do, why would anyone disagree with that? I am sure the movie will suck too, just wait and see, it was all phoned in after all
“Oliver is a friggin’ cry baby who has worked as a cinematographer on exactly two feature films.”
Typical tactic, tear down the credibility of the person making the claim instead of addressing the point
“None of this matters. It’s what the finished product is that matters.”
I’m sure that is what he counted on too, since this is ‘a wes anderson’ brand, but it is all ego, a typical dick move. reminds me of m night shyamalan starting up a new series of movies with different directors/writers based on ideas he had. so he can make the $$$ and not suffer through negative reviews… instead of just trying harder next time.
That is why this is annoying, it is a typical attitude of ‘higher ups’ … people don’t try hard anymore, they don’t work, they want to take all the acclaim without doing the leg work, no matter who they step on
Allen, I think the video I linked to addressed the point nicely. Your invitation to suck it is in the mail.
Anderson looks to be very hands on to me, just not present physically. Bad leadership? Maybe, but this isn’t a boy scout troupe.
Andrew is right. All that matters is what’s on the screen. The rest of this is just soap opera BS. You’re predisposed not to like Anderson. You’ve admitted so and this is just fueling the fire. Otherwise there is no news here.
Travers called Mr Fox a ‘Landmark Film’
Blake – I appreciate your comment, but I don’t think you really understand what goes on in animation – mind you it’s not the same as never being on set, but it’s not possible for a director to be everywhere at the same time when there are at any given moment several different aspects of one scene being made at the same time. Often times, dailies are done via skype.
“Andrew is right. All that matters is what’s on the screen. The rest of this is just soap opera BS. You’re predisposed not to like Anderson. You’ve admitted so and this is just fueling the fire. Otherwise there is no news here.”
That’s the same attitude all the bosses in the US have nowadays, doesn’t matter how you treat your employee, can use and abuse them as long as they make their $$, it is a dangerous attitude. It does matter how people treat each other.
for anderson to be hundreds of miles away in a castle in a paradise, being paid millions to send email, while the crew are in such a thankless low paying field (stop motion), doesn’t strike you as anything wrong? your attitude is what is wrong with the world of bailouts and apathy about the working class who actully built this empire
Allen, I came back hoping you’d really let me have it for being kind of a jerk, but you pretty much dropped the ball.
Seriously? You’re going to make this about US business now?
Oliver left a comment at RushmoreAcademy.com that has since been taken down (Oliver asked for it to be taken down), where he claims the article is one bad slip of the tongue in hours of interviews.
Also the invitation to bloggers came well before the crappy muck-raking LA Times article.
“for anderson to be hundreds of miles away in a castle in a paradise, being paid millions to send email, while the crew are in such a thankless low paying field (stop motion), doesn’t strike you as anything wrong? your attitude is what is wrong with the world of bailouts and apathy about the working class who actully built this empire”
Well, that provided me with my daily laugh. We’re seriously turning this into a worker’s rights issue now? Ridiculous. Anderson wasn’t “in a castle in paradise,” he was doing actual work. You know, what directors do. In animation, you have several things going on in several places at the same time – particularly in Fantastic Mr. Fox, where Anderson recorded the voices on location. This is turning into a complete mountain out of a mole hill, built on the petty complaints of people who take pretension to the highest levels.
This is an outrage! How come David Poland and other film bloggers gets invited to London and not Sasha and Ryan? O the humanity.
I could care less about the controversy, but it still doesn’t solve the problem of the stop-motion looking awful. And I agree with whoever said they’re probably doing this to compete with WTWTA. Create buzz. Because WTWTA has had buzz (first bad with all the problems, and now pretty great buzz) since last year.
Antichrist/Fantastic Mr. Fox mashup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMxN5MoPoEw
I think this talk about how he directed the film could cost the movie an animated feature nod as the animation branch has already seemed somewhat dismissive of live-action directors like Zemeckis and Linklater in this category and I imagine they would be the ones most upset by this. Plus even if there are 5 nominees there is no shortage of legit contenders: already we have Up, Ponyo, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, and Coraline, and there are several more films coming with Astro Boy already off to a good start with its first reviews.
I haven’t read all of the comments, but I hope someone posted something close to this:
As an stop motion hobbyist I can tell you that it is a long and unforgiving medium. Day of work will end in seconds and minutes of finished film. Since it sounds like they are trying to be computer free the animators don’t have room for errors. This movie is 87 minutes long which equals 125,280 individual frames that had to be manipulated by hand. This means every characters mouth, clothing, eyes, body movements, etc. had to be changed frame by frame and if you mess up a movement you could end up destroying a sequence. That doesn’t include all of the other things that are going on around the characters. I could go on, but basically Anderson does not need to be on set standing around for hours with nothing to do as long as he is making the big decisions which it sounds like he did.
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.