By Courtney VanAuken
Genre in film is a testament to the modern importance of economics in Hollywood. Genre in Hollywood is driven by box office numbers and a prediction of what trends will encourage moviegoers to return to theaters. Audiences want the reassurance that they will be receiving entertainment curated for their enjoyment that falls within the archetypes of a favorable genre. Wes Anderson — though known to be stylistically unique in his artistic medium — is still a filmmaker who operates within Hollywood and these economic notions.
Rick Altman, a professor of cinema and comparative literature at the University of Iowa, asserts in his article “A Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre” that genre is determined by both Hollywood and audiences. Hollywood lets audiences decide with their dollar what films will be successful and should be emulated in the future; this collaboration between movie audiences and Hollywood led to the creation of genre films in Hollywood.
While Altman asserts in his paper that the audience shapes the tropes and trends of genre in Hollywood, findings indicate that straying too far from the audience’s expectations — and conversely, conforming too strictly to the genre cliches — deter audiences from enjoying a film. Heightened conformity to the genre expectations can be unexciting for audiences and restrictive for the narrative. When we understand what Wes Anderson’s films set out to accomplish within the genre of “himself,” we are better able to recognize when his films are able to subvert or challenge genre expectations and boundaries.
Film genre can be analyzed through semantic and syntactic criteria. Semantic criteria are factors such as settings, props, images, performances, and costumes that further the narrative beyond its face value. Syntactic criteria are the tropes and trends that present themselves in the plot of certain film genres. The semantic and syntactic film criteria work in conversation with each other to elevate and heighten the picture, while also serving as a justification for a film’s classification within a certain genre.
As a filmmaker, Wes Anderson’s work functions within the hob smosh French-Arthouse-Americana genre of himself. The Wes Anderson film is one that is riddled with expectations and criteria that are culturally parodied and emulated by amateur film artists. The criteria — while undefined — is one that is widely recognized and exists. Through sifting through the semantic and syntactic functions of a Wes Anderson film, we can identify his adherence to and subversion of expectations in his work.
Semantic criteria of Wes Anderson’s films include his stylistic trademarks: moving vehicle perspective shots, adults acting like children, children acting like adults, curated soundtracks, pastel coloration, doll house aesthetics, and attention to symmetry. These are things that aid — but never define — the narrative. One of the semantic criteria that have become heavily prevalent in Anderson’s films is the stylistic method of directing performance that perpetuates a monolithic state of ennui. This stylized performance can be effective in facilitating a tone of dry wit and accentuating the unsustainability of the character’s current stasis in the narrative. The ennui communicates the state of want and inaction that characters find themselves trapped in.
“The Royal Tenenbaums” (2001) follows the ensemble of the Tenenbaum family as well as the people whom this eccentric family decides to include in their close social circle. In “The Royal Tenenbaums”, the stylized characterization makes sense and can be justified in the reality of the film. It is reasonable that a family would share the same mannerisms and similar eccentric tendencies. The same case can be made with “The Darjeeling Limited” (2007) which follows three brothers as they take a train trip across India.
However, newer releases like “The French Dispatch” (2021) and “Asteroid City” (2023) feature a wide ensemble of characters who come from a wide range of backgrounds. Despite this, they still act in a monolithic style of characterization and expression. These newer films feature Wes Anderson’s trademark characterization without the dramaturgy to support it (‘dramaturgy’ being the practice and theory of dramatic composition and justification). Audiences recognize this style of characterization. While it serves as a recognizable comfort for audiences of Anderson’s films, it raises more questions than it answers.
It can be argued that the Wes Anderson film is one that is recognized for its aesthetics before it is recognized for its narrative. On TikTok, we see trends that show users attempting to create videos in the style of Wes Anderson. While Anderson’s work remains aesthetically iconic, visuals aren’t enough to support the narrative justification of a film.
When looking at Wes Anderson’s work we notice that there is a heavy reliance on the consistency of semantic criteria without the presence of syntactic narrative justification. This leads to weak overall narratives that lack the structure necessary to support and justify the ornate details of Anderson’s work. We see characters stuck in a monolithic state of ennui without the dramaturgy to justify and situate this mood within the world that he creates.
All this having been said, I still hold a great appreciation for Wes Anderson’s work. The poster from my Criterion Collection DVD of Rushmore rests on the wall to the left of me as I write this article. There is a danger, however, to be found in the recently prevailing imbalance of semantic and syntactic for Wes Anderson’s work. Genre shouldn’t be spoonfed to the audience. While genre serves as a compelling comfort for audiences, it shouldn’t be something that defines a film. The evolution of Wes Anderson’s work shows a decreasing regard for dramaturgical stability in favor of feeding audiences the aesthetics and stylistic choices that Anderson churns out in his work. As an audience member, I have grown accustomed to the current stasis of his art. I eagerly anticipate the day Wes Anderson allows himself to step outside the defining and restrictive genre of himself.