Who came up with the idea to combine Wes Anderson and Roald Dahl? Seems silly, right? While both have spent years writing hyperbole for the masses, their styles are very different, no? Wes Anderson enjoys exaggerations in the form of storyboarding, almost as if a graphic novel has been presented shot-by-shot for the masses. Roald Dahl likes action … whether it’s a telekinetic little girl taking on a bully, a giant peach rolling into the ocean, or a rotund child being sucked up a factory tube, that guy likes action. It’s worth note that Anderson and Dahl have collaborated before on Fantastic Mr. Fox, which I would call the least Wes Anderson-y film of Wes Anderson’s entire career.
Roald Dahl has, of course, been examined by history and history found him wanting. This is why we haven’t heard from him in a while. Such raises the question: what is an appropriate cancellation period? Obviously, it depends on the crime. For instance, I don’t ever expect to see Bill Cosby’s smile again in my lifetime regardless of how many smiles he brought to my childhood. I don’t have a problem with that. Roald Dahl’s offense, however, was simply that he was horribly racist; apparently, this crime is forgivable after a period of years. How do I feel about this? I’ll tell you: I’ll review the new Roald Dahl collection of short films, but I’m going to point out in each review that Dahl was a racist.
Sound fair?
Ok, let’s continue: Henry Sugar (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a member of a group I’m not terribly fond of: the idle rich. Once upon a time, I gave no thought to the group, but such was before I realized they wielded enormous political power, and tons of it for awful purposes. Henry cares nothing for such, apparently. Ok, point in your favor, Hank. He only cared about making money. Well, there goes that point.
Upon hearing a fantastical autobiography told face-to-camera by Imdad Kahn (Ben Kingsley), Henry gets the idea
to develop X-ray vision … but only to gain more money, of course.
This is a short story, so I feel like I’ve already given away too much.
What’s remarkable here is the entire 37-minute stretch feels like one giant take. Kingsley, Cumberbatch, and Ralph Fiennes as narrator Roald Dahl are all extremely talented storytellers and the Anderson direction allows them to do so smoothly, constantly facing the audience while the scenery changes in the background. The moments aren’t striking or animated. It’s not that that the piece is boring so much as it’s a little like watching a stoic stand-up prop comic. Imagine if, say, Gallagher did a set completely stone-faced, but with all the props. I think this is what I like best about Wes Anderson films; the world could be blowing up in the background, but our eyes remain on an impassive Ralph Fiennes. I think I could be in a Wes Anderson film, so long as it was green-screened or I was the only person in the foreground; I’d have trouble not reacting to the world around me blowing up.
The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is kinda wonderful and a little sugary. I quite enjoyed the narration, but found the sub-40 minute runtime both beneficial and detrimental. I don’t think there was enough plot to generate a feature-length story, but this one was narrated expertly and the constantly moving background set direction made for a mildly compelling watch.
I’ll tell you this much; it was better than Asteroid City.
There once was a mogul named Henry
Who found life more “meh” than splendy
As a passionate treat
He explored a new cheat
Cuz the gains are better when ill-gotten-ry
Rated PG, 37 Minutes
Director: Wes Anderson
Writer: Wes Anderson
Genre: Wes Anderson on $10/day
Type of being most likely to enjoy this film: Wes Anderson junkies
Type of being least likely to enjoy this film: People that prefer genuine settings
