"Asteroid City" and the Fetishization of Realism in Art

I saw a comment on a post the other day about how the commenter liked Wes Anderson's most recent film, "Asteroid City," but the thought that the "play within a movie" structure of it kind of distracted from the point. I didn't reply to this comment because I try not to get into pointless arguments with strangers online anymore unless I can be pithy and trite rather than actually interested in conveying a point and changing the other person's mind because that happens so rarely I might as well go speed run Super Mario 64 on the Nintendo 64 and hope a random particle from a solar flare comes along and glitches the right bit in my game that I can beat the miraculous world record speed run. Did you follow that? Anyway, what I would have said to this person was, "Are you crazy! That IS the point of the movie!"

It's common knowledge at this point, and very easy to see from anyone who's seen any Wes Anderson film that he has a unique style that many may try to imitate, but it is still entirely his own. If you've seen one Anderson film, you could likely pick out any other Anderson film just by watching a scene. Maybe even just looking at a frame. He's iconic. However, as his career has progressed, he has begun to garner more and more criticism from haters who feel that this "unique style" of his has become too full of itself, self-referential, or even a parody of itself. It's no secret that the director has indeed leaned further and further into his iconic style as time has gone on, which can easily be seen by watching some of his early films like "Bottle Rocket" or "Rushmore" and comparing them to his latest pieces like "The French Dispatch" or "Asteroid City." However, this criticism has never stopped Anderson from doing the exact same things he's always been doing. From my point of view, the height of appreciation for Anderson happened around "The Grand Budapest Hotel," and the height of criticism against him was reached just after "The French Dispatch." Thus, again, just from my point of view, I feel as though "Asteroid City" was a direct response to the criticism he received.

"Asteroid City" is a blatantly fake film. The actors feel like actors putting on a show, the sets look like sets built for a production, the dialogue is stylized and not incredibly natural, and there are two scenes in the film where, instead of using CGI, the director opted for the use of miniature model stop motion, which, of course, looked incredibly fake. This is, however, virtually no different in most aspects from any other recent Anderson film. They all have bizarre acting choices and manufactured sets and unnatural dialogue. This is nothing new and it's exactly what the director has begun to be criticized for overusing. The major difference in "Asteroid City," however, is that it's "supposed" to be fake.

The majority of the story of "Asteroid City" is a play within the movie itself, and the rest of the movie is behind-the-scenes into the writing, casting, and production of that play, but even this behind-the-scenes is told as if it were a documentary or TV special, not as if we were actually watching the events unfold. This method of storytelling that some commenters on TikTok seem to find "distracting," is actually an "excuse" of sorts from Anderson to make the film as fake and stylized as all his other films. Yes, "Asteroid City" doesn't feel "real," but that's because it's not supposed to be. It's as if Wes Anderson, with this film, was saying, "You don't like my style because it's too weird and fake and manufactured? Well that's exactly what it's supposed to be! It's not real life; it's film."

I have always seen Anderson's work as a rejection of hyper-realism in film. Most filmmakers and audiences these days just want things to look as realistic as possible. Or, perhaps it's always been this way. There's a reason animated movies are only eligible for

Director Wes Anderson

"Best Animated Feature" at the Oscars, and not "Best Picture." Still, as cameras and CGI have gotten exponentially better, people just want things to look real. They want to be "immersed." But "realistic" doesn't always mean "good." You can make those autobots look as photorealistic and lifelike as you want, Michael Bay, but if you can't get someone to write a halfway decent story as well, then why should I give a shit? It reminds me of when I see huge, hyper-realistic sketches of faces on TikTok in videos that are always prefaced by some spiel that assures the viewer "nothing you are about to see was photographed, it is all hand drawn." And I'll be honest, those drawing are always *insanely* impressive. The talent required to do those sketches boggles not only my mind, but also the minds of millions of viewers. That being said, once the shock and amazement and novelty wears off, the "point" of these sketches often feels to me like it's just for the sake of being hyper-realistic. Like, what is this supposed to say? Or mean? What truth does this reveal about the world, or humanity, or the artist? And I'm not saying all art has to have some deep profound meaning in order to be good, but I am saying that if the point of a piece of art is just that it took a lot of work and talent to make, I'm not going to be talking about it with my friends later. I'm not going to be telling people they "have to go see it, it looks so real!" I'm not still going to be thinking about it months later, or weeks later, or even the next day, probably.

Wes Anderson has never made it a focus to be as realistic as possible with his films. His focus was on making the films that he wants to make, and the result is very not-realistic, manufactured, stylized, fun, entertaining, emotional, powerful, impactful, and meaningful pieces of art that I absolutely adore. Some people don't like this, and I can't criticize them for that. It's not for everyone. But for you to like "Asteroid City" and not like the fact that it's filmed as a play within a movie, to find that "distracting," to completely ignore one of the core themes not only of "Asteroid City," but also of Anderson's work as a whole? Well, I think that's pretty cussing silly.