Rushmore: follows the ‘love triangle’ between a teacher, pupil and local businessman. While this put Anderson and Schwartzman on the map – and re-ignited Murray’s career – they’re three guys that haven’t really drifted far from their comfort zone since: still, this is probably the best example of all three on form. The main problem I have with Anderson’s films is that they make weird things like stalking someone or a middle-aged man befriending a teenager seem normal, even cool. Like the rest of his films Rushmore is laden with mixed messages about father figures, retro music, humor, and quirky scenes / shots / dialogue (it’s impossible to describe any of his films without using ‘leftfield’, ‘offbeat’, ‘quirky’ et al). More so than his other features, Rushmore has been embraced by the indie crowd and pop culture – and enjoys a hardcore cult following. Personally, I think it’s good but not great. Pretty much the Napoleon Dynamite of the 90’s; you’ll either love, loathe or just not plain old not get it – I’m still in the later camp after several viewings. If you’re wanting to see any Anderson, Schwartzman or (modern) Murray film, best stick with this.
yeah, this is definitely the Anderson one to watch, although i also like Royal Tenenbaums, although after that the whimsy just got annoying
I acautlly have to disagree. While I do feel that Rushmore is the better of the two films, Darjeeling seemed to be a step in the right direction for Anderson after the disappointing Life Aquatic. It combined the humor and quirk of Rushmore with the pathos of Tenenbaums, and for that reason, I think Darjeeling is Anderson’s most mature work, even if it isn’t his best.
Unbelievable, a genuinely intelligent, insightful, and generic SPAM comment that (almost) actually works with the article. BOOM!