The Royal Tenenbaums

just finished watching this for the 100th or so time. van morrison's "everyone" is playing. this movie is the best.

i agree with royal when he says "can't someone be a son of a bitch their whole life and repair the damage? i think people want to hear that." the redemption element is what allows the movie to work, i think. without gene hackman this movie would feel much less grounded than it does... something about his performance is very real even though the movie takes place in wes anderson storybook land. i love the contrast between him -- a schemer and a liar -- and the other characters who are all really committed to their one-dimensional, almost cartoonish identities.

I'm talking about taking it out and chopping it up.

chas has got those boys cooped up like a pair of jackrabbits.

that's a fine reading, treeship. kind of bothers me when people don't 'get' this movie. people place style over substance, etc. royal, the dumb bastard, reminds me of myself in more ways than i'd like to admit. (except i'm not as cool as gene hackman, am more volatile than royal, etc.)

i wish i was a charming scoundrel like royal. unfortunately i think i am most similar to richie.

had u as eli tbh

if treeship is eli, that must make me, like, eli's felon drug dealer (offscreen) at best?

had u as dudley tbh

that makes me extremely happy! love you. back to my ilx avoidance (need to change my s/n, for one). night.

mookie, if i am eli, are you saying that i am especially not a genius?

I am the Seymour Cassel character, whatever his name is.

Dr. McCarren!

or, that is his fake name. his "real" name is Dusty

I have a question about this movie - so IIRC it plays as if it's almost a sequel, right, in that it doesn't establish the characters in a normal way. It's a bunch of characters who know each other reuniting and the film just sort of assumes the reunion will have the same emotional punch for us that it has for them.

And my question is ... was anyone else intensely annoyed by this?

What it reminds me of, actually, is the Lord of the Rings movies, which also had this super portentous tone early on in a way that felt unearned.

you seem to have decided that not "in a normal way" means "not at all" which id dispute

the lord of the rings movies are based on books that at least a dozen and possible more people would have read going in, i believe its quite common to roll with that in such a scenario

The Royal Tenenbaums goes to considerable lengths to backstory its main characters so tbh i'm not sure what lukas is talking about

good movie! i larfed non-stop and so did dr vick

(i will never introduce dr vick in the normal way)

both movies also spend a good 10 mins in the beginning establishing the background and stakes

My favorite film.

(At the intervention).
“I wish you had done this years ago.”
“But you didn’t have a drug problem then.”
“Yeah but it would have meant a lot.”

so you can just roll with it when the real movie starts

So many moments are funny, wistful, and moving at the same time.

“Can’t someone be a shit their whole lives and then come back and make up the damage? I think people want to hear that!”
“What people, dad?”

_The Royal Tenenbaums_ goes to considerable lengths to backstory its main characters so tbh i'm not sure what lukas is talking about

*record scratch*

So there I was, sitting in my parked car outside a Starbucks reading strangers bicker on the internet.

Chas: I've had a rough year, dad.
Royal: I know you have, Chassie.

i almost teared up just reading that.

gene hackman's performance elevates this beyond the other anderson films. there is a gruff humanity that transcends the picture perfect diorama world anderson constructed.

and i think the tension is helpful, actually, in drawing that out. these are characters who are very invested in their image of themselves, to the point of absurdity. that manhattan townhouse is like a mausoleum before royal comes in and shakes things up.

lolz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-TCY5pEByE

as opposed to amiable, generous Bill Murray

*record scratch*

So there I was, sitting in my parked car outside a Starbucks reading strangers bicker on the internet.

― treeship 2, Sunday, March 9, 2025 3:09 PM (forty-one minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

new board description

After a play a couple weeks ago saw a familiar face in the lobby and at first thought is that Charlie Rose? Turns out it was Larry Pine (Succession, among many other things). Then, after Gene Hackman’s death was watching RT clips and watched the Margot Tenenbaum montage ("Margot Smokes") and there’s a scene, “Publicity Tour, Age 24,” where she’s getting groped in her dressing room by LP. RT came out in 2001 and it was already a known thing that Rose was a creep? He didn’t get his comeuppance until 2017. Disgusting.

was anyone else intensely annoyed by this?

I can see someone being put off by the narrative structure that introduces the characters like "oh you remember what so-and-so did" when you've never heard of them before. On the other hand, the people in the film are so stylized and so defined by their societal and familial roles that a more casual or "natural" establishment of who they are might feel even more false.

the film just sort of assumes the reunion will have the same emotional punch for us that it has for them

I feel like the film is designed to give us time to warm up to the family, I don't feel like you're meant to love them straight off.

you seem to have decided that not "in a normal way" means "not at all" which id dispute

apparently I need to clarify - the movie does a good job establishing the characters in the sense that there's no confusion about what everybody's deal is. where it grated was the expectation that I would give a shit.

the lord of the rings movies are based on books that at least a dozen and possible more people would have read going in, i believe its quite common to roll with that in such a scenario

read the books, love the books, the weighty fateful epicness of everything as Jacksoned just felt wrong.

I feel like the film is designed to give us time to warm up to the family, I don't feel like you're meant to love them straight off.

here's the crux. i disagree with this. i really felt as if I was expected to love them immediately, and not only did I not, the expectation was alienating.

to give an example, the first meeting of Luke Wilson and Gwyneth Paltrow in the movie is just dripping with sentiment. the dialogue is ironically understated, sure, but that's just so their winsome looks at each other can hit you over the head even harder. where I come from there's some foreplay first.

i think, and look this is a silly thing to say, you feel wrong.

is anderson winsome, are all his tricks out here, yep

do i think you're coming across quite forced in the aspects of this you seem quite determined to insist are "like this" trying to "achieve that" well we'll discuss all day about intent, does it work, etc but i dont think you need to clarify to be honest i understood you i just think you're wrong, the movie doesn't in fact do what you are saying imo at all

i really felt as if I was expected to love them immediately

OK, my early impression was "what a box of freaks"

...going into it having really loved Rushmore, which is a much more "human-scaled" drama.

besides larfing no-stop dr vick's response included: "lol ffs royal tenenbaum is my dad, this is my own family"

her family are not even slightly posh or rich but they are tbf quite strange (mostly lovably, i never met her dad tho, he was a bit of a monster apparently)

There is no other version of the film where these things happen, we’re not talking Tenet or some shit, it is what it is and arguing about a version of the film that does not exist is a waste of everyone’s time. If you can only enjoy a film by finding the characters likeable, that’s not the director’s problem.

Isn't lukas' complaint that according to him the film wants us to find the characters likable, not that he enjoys films with likable characters?

^^

The question of whether the film “wanted” me to find the characters likeable never occurred to me because it’s not that kind of film. The fact it occupies such a space in lukas’s mind suggests it matters to him. Idk? I’m not the one making several posts about the likeability, or lack thereof, of the characters.

I don't mind the discussion. TRT is the Anderson film I haven't watched since 2001. My memories about tonal attitude are vague.

FWIW I didn't have this issue with other Wes Anderson movies, I generally find his characters annoying but the other films are less sentimental about them.

I haven’t seen it since ~2005 but my impression was not of any character being likable or that we’re supposed to care about them because of what we’re shown. We care because the scenes of longing/regret/etc. are ones we’ve seen played out before.

luke wilsons and anjelica huton's characters are imo the only two major ones we are in any way meant to find likeable but even at that the idea we are being shoehorned into liking them seems like a forced perspective to me

the assertion we are being told by the movie that we have to like stiller, other wilson, paltrow, hackman? not for me. not at all!

From what I remember Huston was more pitiable than likable (Huston's ability to project simmering anger is one of her strengths as an actor).

space for both, in the same way i can sympathise with but not like the others of royal's children

The film assumes you have already grown to love the characters after watching the royal one through nineenbaums

we're supposed to like these enbaums? that's racist

I don't even own a tenenbaum