Rating: 5/5 stars
Wes Anderson’s (“Asteroid City”) adaptation of Roald Dahl’s (“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”) short story, “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar,” is about the mystical extrasensory perception of Imdad Khan (Ben Kingsley, “Learning to Drive”). Actually, it is about the hubris-turned-charity of the unreasonably wealthy Henry Sugar (Benedict Cumberbatch, “Doctor Strange”). No, it is really about the whimsical storytelling of the iconic Dahl (Ralph Fiennes, “The Menu). No: what this 40-minute long short film, courtesy of Netflix, is about is beside the point, because the point of the movie is Anderson, the director, the one storyteller we never see, but he nevertheless forces us to deal with him.
“The Wonderful Story” reiterates the convoluted storytelling for which critics praise him and the Oscars politely tolerate. The title refers to the nested stories that construct the film. Dahl bookends the film in a recreation of his personal writing room. Dahl kicks off the pattern of narration, from him to the title character to a report by Dr. Chatterjee (Dev Patel, “Slumdog Millionaire”) on Khan to Khan himself. Here narration surpasses an informational voiceover, partially because it details everything to a hysterically encyclopedic degree and partially because there is barely any voiceover at all. Anderson’s narrators stare directly into the audience and formally describe every fact of the story, even clarifying their own dialog ue with “I said.”
Anderson’s characters’ trademark high-paced speech, even more than usual, compel us to rely on subtitles to digest the story. This can render Anderson’s films tedious and pretentious to viewers. For this particular story, however, subtitles make a necessary element of the film. This film is not only to be watched but to simultaneously be read. Similarly, the set changes mimic the mechanics of a stage show. Anderson films break from the tradition of directors to justify some unique quality of “cinema.” As whimsical as they both are, Anderson has no intention of being a Steven Spielberg (“The Fabelmans”). Anderson’s previous work “Asteroid City” demonstrates this equally with its similar attempt at a movie within a play within a movie.
“The Wonderful Story” combines the facets of several mediums, and in doing so redefines what it means to tell a story as a filmmaker. Film students drool over “auteurs.” That is, directors being artists; while critics call Anderson an auteur, what this film proves is that Anderson considers himself more of an artist using the medium of film rather than a director constantly trying to make his films appear artsy.
One additional note while we are at it: Pulp (“Common People”) vocalist Jarvis Cocker silently cameos as an extra, likely because he is friends with Anderson, but it feels nice to pretend Anderson is paying homage to the parody of social class Cocker and his bandmates hit the UK Singles chart with. Anderson’s restriction to upper class hijinks corners his range of ideas, so Cocker’s appearance is a blatant bit of irony.
Anderson cultivated and continues to cultivate an ultra-specific style he expensively locks himself into and throws away the key. This film duplicates Anderson’s routine pastel color schemes, symmetrical setwork, sardonic humor, prolific casting, quick deadpan delivery and bourgeois situations as the rest of his filmography. It should be fun and easy to knock at least a star off every new Anderson film on the grounds of unoriginality. Unfortunately, this film is really good. Rather than spoiling Dahl’s original story, Anderson’s postmodern dedication to form, as stupid as that sounds, actually enriches it.
Image from Esquire via Netflix
