The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is comfort for those who feel disappointed after watching Asteriod City. In my previous film review, I expressed my thoughts on watching Asteriod City: it has the visual style of Wes Anderson but lacks in storytelling, giving more of a dream-like experience. This film has also let down some Wes Anderson fans, including myself, who found it to be visually stunning but lacking substance. Three months later, Wes Anderson released four short films based on Roald Dahl's story collection, with the longest one being The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, which has a runtime of 38 minutes. This short film has received ratings on major websites that are consistent with Wes Anderson's previous works, and it may restore your faith in Wes Anderson if you were disappointed previously.
First, in this short film, you can see some of Wes Anderson's visual characteristics. For instance, the nested narrative structure. A person tells a story, then a second person appears in that story. The second person tells a story, and then a third person appears in that story. Finally, the third person tells a story. Wes Anderson uses this narrative structure again in this short film. The storytellers face the camera. First, it's the author Roald Dahl, followed by the protagonist of Dahl's story, Henry Sugar. Then, it's the narrator of the storybook that Henry Sugar reads, portrayed by Dev Patel. Lastly, it's the fascinating subject of Dev Patel's research, played by Ben Kingsley. As each storyteller's story ends, the perspective shifts back to the previous storyteller. It's like opening a Russian nesting doll and putting it back together. The narrators also break the fourth wall of the film by directly looking at the audience. It's not a film driven by a plot, but more like an illustrated storybook.
![Image description](https://img.peliplat.com/api/resize/v1?imagePath=peliplat/article/20231023/0bee3d9cdcd08f2c696b305f5c1f2808.png&source=s3-peliplat)
In terms of composition, this short film reflects Wes Anderson's consistent emphasis on symmetry and harmony. The frames primarily consist of symmetrical compositions, with an occasional focus on the golden ratio or diagonal compositions.
![Image description](https://img.peliplat.com/api/resize/v1?imagePath=peliplat/article/20231023/95c68d0dbf4633ed90bb89563ad380e3.png&source=s3-peliplat)
In terms of cinematography, this short film adopts a style reminiscent of stage plays. The camera rarely pans or tilts, and there are no close-ups, panoramic shots, over-the-shoulder shots, reverse shots, or collage montages. The majority of shots are horizontal mid-shots. The characters either face the camera directly or stand perpendicular to it. The camera remains fixed, mirroring the fixed perspective that theater audiences have.
![Image description](https://img.peliplat.com/api/resize/v1?imagePath=peliplat/article/20231023/ba859ca0f0669b7c88ac64a787f788cb.png&source=s3-peliplat)
Regarding multi-character scenes, the characters are typically positioned side by side or dispersed in the foreground, middle ground, and background (marked as 1, 2, 3 below).
![Image description](https://img.peliplat.com/api/resize/v1?imagePath=peliplat/article/20231023/135ae992dedbae13a925b1606b1a64ea.png&source=s3-peliplat)
Wes Anderson is known for breaking the cinematic illusion of creating a sense of reality. This is evident not only in how the characters interact directly with the audience, but also in Anderson's tendency to remind the audience that they are watching a movie. In this short film, scene transitions often involve directly showing the set. The audience can see the characters speaking or walking while the background quickly changes, and there are even crew members appearing to assist the protagonist with their makeup. The theatrical stage-like spatial arrangement, along with the use of low saturation candy-colored tones, further accentuates the artificial nature of the film's scenes, highlighting their non-realistic quality.
![Image description](https://img.peliplat.com/api/resize/v1?imagePath=peliplat/article/20231023/9552f0856320f19c14ca8b76d9570982.png&source=s3-peliplat)
These characteristics are also commonly found in Wes Anderson's previous films, but in this movie, they are taken to the extreme, resulting in a playful pop-up book feel throughout. However, there are risks associated with this approach: when the camera is less involved in the storytelling, the core of the movie, which is the storytelling itself, becomes more prominent. In his previous works, we can observe the same color tone, composition, and camera techniques. However, due to its lengthy duration and lack of clear focus and themes, the movie feels empty and uninteresting. The abundance of obscure monologues gives the impression that the movie is more of a self-indulgence for the directors rather than for the audience.
However, in this 38-minute short film, all the audiovisual techniques serve a complete story written by the author Roald Dahl. There are no flashbacks, jump cuts, parallel narratives, or twists - the story follows a linear reading order, just like in the novel. The film doesn't even show the images described by the narrator; instead, it focuses on the act of narration itself. While watching, it feels like listening to a child telling a story while playing with their toys. The unconventional filming method adds an element of unpredictability, making the movie interesting. If it were a 90-minute feature film, the lack of a rich story might gradually test the audience's patience. However, it is well-suited for just 38 minutes.
Now, there is a question about how movies are typically presented in three dimensions, but this particular movie takes a different approach and keeps the visuals flat. So, why should we watch the movie instead of just reading the novel? This is a debate surrounding Wes Anderson's recent films. I think this question doesn't require a definitive answer. On one hand, it is not contradictory for someone to read a novel and watch a movie. On the other hand, there is still no agreement on what makes a movie, and there never will be. As long as visuals and sound are used in their own way, it can be considered a movie, just in different forms. And Wes Anderson has already established a highly recognizable visual style, which is enough. Whether he will use this visual style to tell more exciting stories and offer a different viewing experience to the audience, we will have to wait and see.
Share your thoughts!
Be the first to start the conversation.