This is basically a defense of Wes Anderson, which is a position I’d never dreamed I would be in 10 years ago.
Wes Anderson, above all else, is an aesthete and his films are extensions of his personal style. I’ve come to terms with his output being more about presentation than what is presented. And in fact, only when we stop protesting what he isn’t and address what he is, can we actually criticize him.
Though there is nothing overly new or rich about the characters, story, or themes in Wes Anderson’s Isle of Dogs, from an animation perspective alone this film is worth seeing. Anderson creatively synthesizes cutting edge stop-motion animation with Japanese woodblock print imagery, kabuki and bunraku theater influences to create images and sequences that are easily some of the best in his œuvre, and some of the best in animation.
Buried in Anderson’s style fixations is his ethos of individualism, personal duty, social civics, and common morals. Again, he’s not treading new thematic or psychological ground, but he is finding new, unique and interesting ways to express himself. That is more than most artists ever achieve. In his commitment to this ethos, and as an auteur with substance, I see much more in common between Anderson and Robert Bresson or Quentin Tarantino, than I do Michael Bay.
Now for the cultural appropriation question, for which this film has drawn much ire. Overall, I found this film’s approach to be well-meaning and indeed respectful of Japanese culture. The lengths to which Anderson goes to carefully emulate Japanese theater, woodblock printing and cinema speaks volumes. I liken this film more to his masterwork The Grand Budapest Hotel than The Darjeeling Limited. The latter film renders the Indian subcontinent as a colorful, exotic backdrop for white man-child angst, while the former is an example of a film that intelligently and creatively engages with a foreign culture. In fact, I would like to see more filmmakers attempt what Anderson is doing here. And finally, as a challenge for any criticisms, I think most of the claims of foul play could (and would) still be argued even if Anderson had made the opposite choices. This begs the question, is what is being criticized actually the problem, or is the problem that people shouldn’t create artistic projects that engage with cultures foreign to the artist. Obviously there is a line for cultural appropriation, but I do not think this film approaches it.
All of this is to say that I found Isle of Dogs to be a charmingly slight, or slightly charming, film and a must-see for animation fans. Oddly, my biggest complaint with it is that there are not nearly enough dogs in it!
Partial Review 
[…] Isle of Dogs […]
LikeLike
My dear friend, I had a completely different opinion about Isle of dogs and Wes Anderson. Years ago I never would have imagined that a Wes Anderson film would have left such a bitter taste in my mouth, but here we are. I think your analysis of the film fails to adequately interrogate the issues of appropriation. Issues of cultural representation and appropriation should be determined by the cultures and peoples who’ve been underrepresented/oppressed. Sometimes there are not clear distinctions or “lines” that tell us what is appropriation.
First I want to put forward that we can enjoy a film and take issues with it’s sexism, stereotyping, appropriating, etc. Even if you’d like to disregard Isle of Dog’s culture appropriation and focus on its aesthetics, it seems a disservice to the current zeitgeist. In the spirit of discussion, I’d like to opine that this movie is comically offensive. I truly hope more directors do not try to do what Wes Anderson has done (and has done before re: Darjeeling Limited) which is use a culture as a fantastic back drop for white characters -or in this case dogs as a proxy for white men-to galavant and leave behind fragments of a culture and representation. Isn’t it dehumanizing to refuse to put subtitles for all the Japanese characters? Who is given a voice? Just the dogs and Greta Gerwig. We are only able to surmise the Japanese characters’ words through situational context, outlandish facial expression, and fake Japanese words like “sitto”. What is displayed as Japanese culture are gross simplifications of culture: sushi making, sumo wrestling, and names like “Atari”. Least not we forget there is a literal white savior in the form of Greta Gerwig. While the animation was beautiful the story was flat. How many times can Wes Anderson tell the same story of male self discovery and redemption? He uses the same repetitive stoic and macho male characters and ancillary female characters whose roles are to be the subject of the male gaze or be subject to their emotions of love and devotion. It’s disappointing that we look at this film and sigh that, “he was well intentioned”. Who are we joking? Wes Anderson has always been at the forefront of fetishizing white culture and this film shows him at his worst because of its setting and passé characters.
LikeLike
Hey Bryan, thanks for the thoughtful comments. Some short responses:
You didn’t like that the Japanese characters weren’t subtitled. To reference what I said in my review, if they were subtitled would you have been okay with the film? If not, what would still bother you about the film?
You also suggest that in the absence of words, all we are given to understand Japanese culture is exaggerated body language and gross simplifications of cultural practices (sushi, sumo, etc.). I pointed out that aesthetically this movie is synthesizing multiple visual/theatrical art traditions from Japanese culture in order to visually tell the story. I found this approach very subversive. I would argue that Anderson is actually giving the loudest voice to those traditions since they actually tell the story. If people are taking offense to this, I’m sympathetic to listen and learn from that. I definitely don’t want to dismiss any offense that the underrepresented group feels in response to this (though I’m curious who that group is in this instance). But inevitably cultures engage in discussion. What better way to have this discussion than by valuing what another culture values, out of respect and not carelessness. For example, when you and I went to Colombia we wanted to partake in the tejo and drink aguardiente together, because we wanted to engage with the culture. Are there limits to that? Of course. But imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, or something along those lines.
My whole thing with WA is that I’ve always found his characters and plots repetitive and shallow. I could never grasp why all of my budding hipster friends were head over heels for these movies in college. I agree with you, those elements are weak here, but they’ve always been weak and I don’t think thats what WA has been working towards. Specifically these last two are more and more about how to develop new ways to express himself aesthetically, and I’m much more interested in the aspects of his films that he’s most engaged with, than the ones that are more perfunctory.
LikeLike