Storybook Storytelling : Is it effective?

From aesthetically pleasing color grading, vivid set pieces, a dazzling cast and a unique filmography, there is no doubt that Wes Anderson is a director with a vision. One that has the distinct ability to paint a beautiful and scenic picture. 

Knowing nothing besides the gushing public opinion regarding his film making and their content, it would come as no surprise that I was looking for the chance to watch his work. 

And the opportunity, I came to me when I got a reminder from Netflix of a movie I had, long before, put a notification for: The Wonderful Story Of Henry Sugar. You can imagine my surprise and consecutive excitement for it. 

I can only now after watching the film and later seeing a good half of The Grand Budapest Hotel express my thoughts as so: Appreciative but not Entertained. 

But let's extend that statement and further explore it.

I am of the view that Wes Anderson is someone who clearly knows what he is doing and it is present in his art. The actors and the crew have put in the effort and as such, the decor, the sets and the characters are well-rounded and complete. 

Now, let's take the first part of the statement: Appreciative. 

As mentioned above, the movies I have seen as a whole and seen clips of are well-made and as someone who enjoys fun color palettes and specific tics of directors, it is a joy to watch. Hence, I am and will always respect and appreciate the care given to the detail and setting which in turn add to the atmosphere and mood of the story. 

Now, let's move onto the second, more complex part of the statement: but not Entertained.

The word entertaining might make you think that these movies have nothing enjoyable but that would be incorrect. So, let me clarify what I mean here by entertainment. Because that word is used in a very specific meaning in this context. 

What I mean here is that though the movie has interesting characters and tells a very intriguing story, I feel detached. That might sound strange because I just said that the story and characters were interesting, so naturally you would be involved, right?

Well, here's the part I've being keeping to myself. Something you might not be aware of unless you've seen other Wes Anderson films before. He employs a technique that I like to call 'Storybook Storytelling' (she did the thing! she said the title! roll credits!) 

Storybook Storytelling is essentially when you tell the plot of your film with a narrator who describes the story in great detail. Basically, the level of description that a book uses is emulated by the speaker in the film. Everything single thing is detailed and nothing is missed by our narrator. It gives a quirky, children's book-esque feeling that remains unique to the story alone. 

Don't get me wrong though. This is very different from what I was used to and only made me more invested and curious. 

However, that changed when the film (in this case the Henry Sugar Short Film) did that throughout the entire run. Obviously this made sense as a stylistic choice and I understood that. But something else I realized was that it took away from another thing that was crucial for any story. The heart. When most of your characters describe events as though reciting a grocery list, you lose the emotion, the importance and the attention of both your audience and the character themselves. 

At a certain point I wondered if I still liked the film. It was only 40 minutes and yet I remember only enjoying some parts. I liked the actors. But when all of their delivery is the same, slightly dead-pan narration, all the rarity of the spoken dialogue is lost. One of the most fun things in comedies, for example, is watching two actors with different deliveries build off each other to make a joke. It's movie magic. But you lose that when everyone has the same intonation. Even if your script is made that way, characteristic changes between roles add something more the story. 

Due to that, I realized that the movie, much like the Ronald Dahl book it was based on, was more of a visual-auditory book-like experience than a film-like one. But the difference is that film and books are two different medias. Therefore, expression is received in a different way. In books, such high level of detail is not unusual and can make it a more immersive experience. However, in a film where instead of getting dialogue and movement and some space to take in the information, we are bombarded with line after line. You could argue that like a book, a movie could be paused and viewed. But just imagine how exhausting it would be to do that when you just want to watch a new short film. Suddenly, you need to treat a Wes Anderson script like a Christopher Nolan one. I suppose my point here being, there is beauty in simplicity as well. 

Remember how I said somewhere above that I also watched half of The Grand Budapest Hotel? I did, you don't need to check. Well, another thing Mr. Anderson has in common with Nolan (and many other famous directors) is a recurring cast of actors. It is something that annoys me and I wanted to point out. Hire new talent when you have the opportunity. Because half of the cast you keep hiring are well-known, job getting actors. Anyways, back to what I was saying. The Grand Budapest Hotel also has this method of storytelling. I don't know if all of his movies do, so these two will be my little subjects. 

The movie is compelling but gets tiring. The only reason it remotely works is because of Ralph Fiennes. Now, there's a job-stealer. That is a compliment because he's a force of nature and a talent to be afraid of. Otherwise, it's okay. I find it interesting how a movie can be fun and boring at the same time. And once again, he employs 'the story is told by a writer in great detail'. Except, Wes Anderson is clearly a huge Chris Nolan fan because there is inception levels of depth here. The story is told to us by the writer through a fourth wall-break. And in the story, the tale of the Budapest Hotel is told to the main character by the hotel owner. The hotel owner introduces the character of  the concierge, who was the head of the hotel in the past who then also becomes the narrator. If none of that made sense, that's on you. 

But in general, there is so much explaining stuff. And if I was a writer, I'd probably opt for this method because then you just get to explain stuff without worrying about it making any sense because 'that's how the script was supposed to be'. 

So, as a result, it just becomes a empty shell with pretty embellishments. I think it could be effective when done well but in my opinion, this was not that. Making the films I saw, just good. Not bad or average. Good. But not great or excellent either. 

And it's such a shame because it's a good concept that can be done well but in this case I don't think it was, at least for me, a very specific viewer. 

🐄