The sociopathic Mr. Anderson or the cry baby Mr. Oliver?
This is a non-story unless you’re a fan of behind the scenes gossip and on set squabbles. I’m not, but back in September I dropped passing reference (by way of Vulture) to bad blood between Wes Anderson and the team of animators he hired to bring his adaptation of Roald Dahl’s Fantastic Mr. Fox to life. The report seemed to please those who haven’t warmed up to Fox’s distinctly lo-fi technique.
A little over a week ago, the above featurette popped up online that was clearly an attempt to defend the notion that Anderson was directing the film “via email.” Of course the above is studio propaganda, but it makes a compelling case that Anderson was deeply involved in every step of a process that at times transpired simultaneously on 30 different sets whether he was physically present or not.
I thought that was the end of it until Sunday’s piece on Fox in the LA Times. “Reporting from London,” Chris Lee chose to focus on the juicy headline friendly bitching of Tristan Oliver, the disgruntled director of photography and of course the internet ran with it here, here, here, here, here, here and probably many other places.
Mr. Oliver, who has worked as the cinematographer on a grand total of two feature-length stop-motion animated films (Chicken Run and Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit) took the gravest exception to Anderson’s absence. “It’s not in the least bit normal…I’ve never worked on a picture where the director has been anywhere other than the studio floor!” Lee saves the best Oliver quote for last: “I think he’s a little sociopathic…I think he’s a little O.C.D. Contact with people disturbs him. This way, he can spend an entire day locked inside an empty room with a computer. He’s a bit like the Wizard of Oz. Behind the curtain.”
That a director with a specific vision but no animation experience would conflict with pros in the business is not really a surprise. What’s surprising is that a supposed professional would cry about it to a reporter.
In Anderson’s defense, veteran animation producer Allison Abbate noted that Tim Burton wasn’t on the set for Corpse Bride much either: “He doesn’t need to be. Making stop-motion is like watching paint dry.”
Does the director need to be in the room to watch paint dry or is it safe to do it from the cushy confines of a Paris hotel room? When asked about Oliver’s griping, Anderson said: “I would say that kind of crosses the line for what’s appropriate for the director of photography to say behind the director’s back while he’s working on the movie. So I don’t even want to respond to it.”
That’s pretty much the only response Oliver deserves. The proof will be in what ends up on the screen. The bickering is meaningless. All that matters is whether Anderson managed to get his vision on film and whether that vision actually works. The how and the why of it make an entertaining soap opera, but otherwise don’t matter a bit.
Fantastic Mr. Fox makes its world premiere at the London International Film Festival tomorrow. It makes its North American premiere at AFI Fest on October 30 and it opens in limited release in US theaters on November 13.
Filed under: Buzz, Film Festivals, Gossip
Tags: AFI Fest, Fantastic Mr. Fox, London Film Festival, Tristan Oliver, Wes Anderson
The how and the why of it make an entertaining soap opera, but otherwise don’t matter a bit.
Well said. Artists collaborate without being in the same space all the time. Musicians lay down tracks separated by time and space. Hell, the Beatles’ last albums were made that way.
Presumably, Anderson saw the dailies, and I would think — given the snails pace of stop-motion animation — that it would be more than sufficient.
Yes, he apparently worked closely with the voice actors and if the featurette is accurate, he was getting constant feeds from all the animation work and had copious notes and suggestions even to the point of acting out little bits in videos for the animators to see.
I’m a bit of an Anderson apologist so of course I’d take his side, but conversely this thing is being blown out of proportion by the people who don’t like him. If the movie stinks, maybe we can point to this kerfuffle as one of the reasons why, but until then…
You Anderson apologists are so cute…I kid, I kid!
This whole thing is actually sort of funny since as far as I know, none of us (or any of the other folks reporting on this) have worked on a film set or directed a stop-motion feature before. I’m not sure if we can pass judgment on either camp. Clearly Oliver has stepped WAY over the line, but he has actual experience with the process on two previous features. I don’t think his professional expectations can be discounted so easily, even if his comments are non-professional in nature.
As for Tim Burton and Corpse Bride, he had a co-director, so that doesn’t really count.
Did Anderson need to be on the set? Does it matter? The proof will be in the pudding. Does it seem unprofessional to direct via email and video from afar? Sure, but minus any real context for any of this we’re all just pissing in the wind.
Devin Faraci played the “I’ve been on movie sets before…” card and he’s full of shit.
I’ll allow that Oliver knows far more about traditional stop-motion animation than Anderson, but it’s not his movie. For better or for worse, it’s Anderson’s.
Even if Oliver is right that Anderson needed to be there and the film is not as good because he wasn’t, crying about it in public seems to me to be utterly lacking in professionalism. The movie might totally suck, but the guy is a douche.
Yeah, I agree that his comments put him in douche territory. I’m just saying that trying to judge it without understanding the requirements of the situation isn’t helping. Further, we don’t know what the on-set situation was. There’s been rumors for a while of trouble and now it appears to be boiling over. This guy may be the source of all the rumors and just a freak or Anderson’s management choices may have caused problems that won’t be evident in the final product.
Who knows?
Just goes to show the extensive skill sets directors need -> a cohesive artistic vision that monitors and directs every aspect of production, at least through his/her heads of department, together with a mind-blowing capacity for hard-work and for carrying the burden of responsibility, organizational skills, and the ability to lead and unite those working under you. I’m surprised it doesn’t go to hell more often, resulting in subsequent recrimination and complaint.
I don’t think it is professional to publicly complain like this, particularly how potentially detrimental it is to box office. I can only imagine that Oliver feels that his reputation would be even more harmed by remaining silent.
“I’m surprised it doesn’t go to hell more often, resulting in subsequent recrimination and complaint.”
I’m sure it goes to hell quite often and the results may be great or a disaster or somewhere in-between, but you don’t hear about it because most people are smart enough to value their careers. This can’t be a wise choice for Oliver, even if he’s right and everyone in Hollywood knows it. The studios don’t look kindly on blabber mouths…unless they get top billing and lots of box office.
This is a good article for film students and a reminder that no matter how talented you are, you can’t just show up and command the respect of your crew.
George Lucas didn’t find that to be the case when he shot the original Star Wars in Elstree Studios. James Cameron experienced a similar backlash when he came to Pinewood Studios to shoot Aliens. Veteran film crews — particularly the Brits — are notoriously prickly with wunderkind directors who show up wanting to think outside the box.
I think Anderson acquitted himself well in that article and handled the situation the right way, with tactful determination. In 20 years, those guys will all be in a bar bragging about how they got to work with Wes Anderson on The Fantastic Mr. Fox.
Well said, everyone. Admittedly not knowing the industry specifics, it sounds to me like a case of old school v. new school, with some personality clashes thrown in. I can appreciate that if a DP encountered problems on the set, it would be at least psychologically useful to have the director there, especially if that’s your norm.
I telecommuted for years, still do with some of my freelancing. I regularly encountered resistance to the idea that I could work just as well if not better from home in Arkansas than I could from a cubicle in London or NYC or wherever. But I can. People are still comforted by having a physical presence there, feel disconnected by all this new technology. Though in truth I have a lot less contact with my colleagues face to face in my full-time, regular job now than ever, since we just e-mail and text and call each other from our separate offices down the hall anyway.
Regardless, yes. Oliver’s comments may be justifiable in content but not in context. That’s a serious breach of professionalism, does not reflect well on the DP. Anderson handled it well.
Still excited about the movie!
Jeff Wells asked Anderson about the kerfuffle at the Fox press junket in London:
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/10/three_or_four_h.php
Wells’ interviewing and talking and breathing are like fingernails on a chalkboard to me so I didn’t actually listen, but apparently Anderson insists he and Oliver are fine and that Oliver is saying he was misquoted or misunderstood.
Always with the “misquoted” defense. I’m sure everything is fine now, if certain parties wish to stay employed in the future.
JB, you make a pretty consistent point about working remotely but I think managing remotely is a different matter entirely, especially when you’re in one place and the entire team is a continent away. It works fine if everyone is comfortable working that way, but it doesn’t take much to ruffle people’s feathers when they’re getting instructions from afar and no face time with the boss. It’s one thing to video conference, offer instruction via email, and be available online 24/7 (I assume Anderson must have been). It’s another to be able to take your boss aside and discuss a pertinent problem and feel as though they have a handle on the situation.
I’ve worked remotely myself, via freelance gigs, and it all depends on the boss and quality of the communication. I can’t imagine how a situation like this would work though. It seems inherently problematic, even if the day-to-day is like watching paint dry.
I have little opine on this as it’s all hearsay etc. but my gut response is that a director should at least visit the set for a dozen different reasons, least of all to make the team busting their ass feel included. It’s like when actors complained about Coppola directing them from his Silver Trailer. And I bet Wes showed up to direct the actors…
I was more than a little annoyed Chris Lee made this the focal point of a piece that was otherwise an interesting look behind the scenes of the production. I understand why he did it…but it’s pretty useless reporting.