>I can understand trolling to keep on riding QT;I actually
>agree with you calling the characters insincere in Django.
>But Wes Anderson? Horrible example. Just because a movie's
>setting is 'whimsical surrealism' doesn't mean the characters
>can't be sincere...if that's the case genre cinema itself is
>insincere.

you first mistake is concluding that i'm only talking about the characters. the overall tone of a tarantino film (and early wes anderson to a much lesser degree) is insincerity. there is no effort made to create a world where the audience ever loses sight of the fact that this is tarantino being "cool"...from the soundtracks to the larger-than-life intros of the primary chracters..it's ALL a big ass in-crowd theater "experience"...and if you choose not to judge his films that way, then you "don't get it." nah, i get it, but i'm tired of it. make a real damn movie about something real. and i'm saying wes anderson has moved beyond the "in-crowd" thing and he's putting some faith in his audience to care and tone down the "style."

>>There was nothing at stake there....Bottle Rocket was worse.
>>And then it got worse. And worse.
>
>His whole lane is quirky upper middle class folks dealing with
>mid life crises..in fact the sincerity is how he grounds
>them/makes em relatable to the audiences as opposed to us
>immediately getting turned off to what bratty pricks they
>actually are...mortality, failing at your life goals,
>etc...all high stakes important, relatable and SINCERE things
>to an audience. Not all his movies achieve this (Bottle
>Rocket), and some try to convey it and fail (Darjeeling), but
>that's his lane to a tee. You may feel he fails (and I can
>understand why, look at the prick comment above)...but that's
>the number one thing he's trying to sell, lol.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sincerity
>
>"Other critics have suggested "new sincerity" as a descriptive
>term for work by American filmmakers such as Wes Anderson, P.
>T. Anderson, Todd Louiso, Sofia Coppola, and Charlie Kaufman,
>Zach Braff, and Jared Hess, and filmmakers from other
>countries such as Michel Gondry, Lars von Trier, the Dogme 95
>movement, Aki Kaurismäki, and Pedro Almodóvar."
>
>What's your definition of sincerity where M.Night passes the
>sniff test but Wes Anderson fails miserably? Extremely somber
>characters moping around?

Does anything Night Dogg has ever put on screen come across as gag to you? Do ridiculous wardrobe choices and crazy focal lengths and wacky framing and lazy text crawls EVER show up in his films, winking at us, letting us know that the film is a living, breathing exercise in self-awareness?

no, Night Dogg don't do that. If he fails, it's because he's not afraid to. Like I said, no one tries to dead ass pull of a minimalist, hyper-realistic suspense-horror about killer trees and not at least HINT to the audience that they know it's STUPID...except Night Dogg. Because he thought he could pull it off and he had faith in the audience to absorb it. He was hideously mistaken. But I will always admire the attempt.

The only unanimous L QT took was Death Proof and you STILL had people swearing it was jerk-off session and it wasn't SUPPOSED to be taken seriously. And I don't see the difference between Death Proof and anything else he's done, save Jackie Brown, when it comes to jerking-off in the audience's face. But that's just me.

And that Wiki entry is ridiculous. Those filmmakers are wildy divergent. Pedro and Lars and P.T. ...AND Wes Anderson. Hell, Zach Braff belongs on that list more than Wes. Garden State was a straight up film, with directly stated intentions and honest execution.