In the Kingdom of Wes Anderson

Wes Anderson, director and co-writer of such films as Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and Fantastic Mr. Fox, has a new movie out: Moonrise Kingdom.

With an impressive 95% Fresh critical consensus on the Rotten Tomatoes site (and a 92% from the non-professional-critic Audience), the film still has its haters.  I give you The New York Observer's Rex Reed:

"Preceded by bewildering blogs and Tweets (and even a few genuine reviews) from Cannes ('A Tender Triumph!' 'Glows in the Darkness!' 'Ode to Arrested Development!'), Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom is juvenile gibberish about two 12-year-olds who get married in a Boy Scout camp that is too sexually outrageous for the preteen age group it portrays and too tween for grown-ups. Like all Wes Anderson movies, it is naïve, mannered, pretentious and incomprehensible. He co-wrote it with Roman Coppola (yikes! another Coppola!). Together they were responsible for The Darjeeling Limited, one of the worst movies of all time. This one is neither as contrived as The Royal Tenenbaums nor as moronic as The Darjeeling Limited, but its boredom quotient is still stuck in the same unbroken wave of dubious tedium Mr. Anderson is famous for. (It also features another Coppola, the creepy Jason Schwartzman.) What is it with this guy and his awful movies masquerading as 'original ideas' that turns otherwise sensible critics into slobbering groupies?"

Reed would certainly fall into the group that Michael Specter calls Anderson's "detractors."  In a new Wall Street Journal piece (a mini-tribute, really) called "The World of Wes Anderson,"  Specter writes that Anderson "has been tagged with the loathsome term 'quirky,' largely because he has a particular vision and is tenacious in bringing it to life."

And whether you love his work or hate it, Anderson's work IS immediately recognizable as his.  Check out what he does with this recent car commercial:

Besides the "quirky" epithet, Anderson's work is also often dismissed for being "precious" and "twee."  I'm guessing that many who throw those terms around couldn't actually provide accurate definitions of either word, so let me turn to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

precious: "excessively refined: AFFECTED"

twee: "chiefly British : affectedly or excessively dainty, delicate, cute, or quaint"

And since both definitions refer to AFFECTATION, here's that definition: "the act of taking on or displaying an attitude or mode of behaviour not natural to oneself or not genuinely felt."

So the knock on Anderson seems to be that his work is fake, not genuine, pretentious, cutesy, and--something that seems to lurk under the surface of a lot of Anderson criticism--not suitably masculine.  I think there's a journal article there, but I want to move on.  Here's the trailer to Moonrise Kingdom:

Here are a few words from Wes Anderson:

"I want to try not to repeat myself. But then I seem to do it continuously in my films. It's not something I make any effort to do. I just want to make films that are personal, but interesting to an audience. I feel I get criticized for style over substance, and for details that get in the way of the characters. But every decision I make is how to bring those characters forward."

Here are a few words from me (or is that too twee?): I love some of Anderson's movies and don't respond to some others.  For me, the stylization works best when it reflects the imagination and originality of youthful protagonists.  At other times, it can have the effect of distancing us emotionally.  In Moonrise Kingdom, the Aesthetics (with a capital A) can keep us at arm's length, but slowly the movie pulls us in (if we let it), providing a surprisingly emotional pay-off.

But who cares what I think?  Wes Anderson is a stylish guy.  Just look at him.

Some might see affectation.  I see someone who is true to himself.