The Grand Budapest Hotel

Plane travel, as anyone can tell you, is onerous. (It is really quite convenient, of course, and somewhat miraculous, that we can cross the Atlantic in a matter of hours THROUGH THE AIR! But I will set aside this optimistic view, as I wish to complain. Or, as one says in German, ich will mich beschweren.) One must either be foolish and improvident and spring for business class — which gets you to the same place at the same time for many hundred dollars more — or ride in steerage, which always feels to me like descending into the bowels of the galley in Ben-Hur where the slaves are rowing to the beat of the drum. The slaves in Ben-Hur, at least, had no wailing infants to contend with. Sing, O Muse, of the multifarious unpleasant sounds that babies make! The periodic waaaa waaa waaaaa, the sort of gurgling hiccup, the high-pitched, sustained eeeeeee.

But don't let me bore you, dear reader, with my travails on the plane. What I really meant to write about was the movie I saw whilst crossing the Atlantic, coming back from Vienna: The Grand Budapest Hotel. Ten minutes into the film I was certain that I would want to watch it again. Perhaps this is partly for sentimental reasons: the story takes place in a fictional Mitteleuropean nation, "once the seat of an empire", that, over the course of the twentieth century, goes from decadence to fascism to communism to post-communism. (The titular hotel is depicted in the thirties as a gorgeous jugendstil palace; by the sixties its gaudy façade has been replaced with depressing concrete. It's finely-observed details like this that make the film especially satisfying to anyone who has traveled in those parts of the world where this happened.) The dialogue, while not composed of sentences that people actually say, was charming, perhaps because of the excellent performances, by Ralph Fiennes and F. Murray Abraham in particular. (Certain writers have instantly recognizable dialogue that irritates me to no end because it is merely how the writer himself speaks. I find Aaron Sorkin to be especially bothersome in this regard.)

The movie is written and directed by Wes Anderson, whose works generally inspire passionate intensity of feeling, either positive or negative. The chief charge leveled against him is that his films are excessively twee. I cannot say whether this is a fair assessment, as the only movie of his I have previously seen is Fantastic Mr Fox, which I found to be a fun adaptation of the Dahl book, and not unduly precious. In any case, I have a high tolerance for whimsy. The real issue, of course, is whether Anderson's films are entirely style without any substance, and whether that is bad. To be certain, they are highly stylized — but we can't condemn a movie simply because it isn't verismo. Looking at the other arts as an instrumental musician — and thus a producer of art that cannot make explicit reference to anything — I am very reluctant to pan a film simply because it is so stylized as to be non-referential. Must a movie make us think about other things? Why can't a movie simply be an exercise in making a movie, as skillfully as possible? I found The Grand Budapest Hotel to be a well-made movie, with fine actors, a carefully-realized setting, and a compelling story. Does one need anything more from a film?