I just came back from seeing Asteroid City and it really has me at a loss. I’ve only seen The Grand Budapest hotel of his other movies but know of the inherent weirdness of his movies. I usually know how to classify and discuss a movie after I’ve seen it but this one left me kind of speechless. Not in the sense that I thought it’s the most amazing movie I’ve ever seen but rather that I really don’t know what to make of it.
Was it weird? Yes. Was it uncanny? Yes. Was it beautiful to look at? Yes. Did I understand it? No. Was there anything to understand? I’m not sure. I felt like it tried to lead me somewhere the whole runtime, but I didn’t get to any conclusion at the end.
I’m sure there’s someone here with a bit more context to his filmography that could shine a little light onto the movie, or lead me in the right direction.
On another note, feel free to discuss what you thought of it here, I’d love to read your thoughts!
You must log in or # to comment.
There are two stories being told at the same time. One is the story of a 1950s stage production called “Asteroid City” and the other is an actual presentation of the stage play “Asteroid City”.
It flips back and forth between the behind the scenes stage production and the actual play itself.
It’s stilted and awkward because that was the style of many plays in that era. If you look at playwrites like Harold Pinter or Samuel Beckett, you’ll get the same vibe.
Here are films of two of Beckett’s better known productions, this is the sort of vibe Anderson was going for. It was called “theater of the absurd”:
No, it doesn’t make much sense. Why is that woman buried in dirt up to her waist in the first act and up to her neck in the second? You aren’t supposed to ask those kinds of questions with these productions.
That’s going to bother a lot of people.
