My Pre-Pubescent Ex-Girlfriend

Rating: 8/10 (15 March 2015)

What do I loathe about the world?—the fact that its genesis is compared to everything else generated by human mind, like the world is not an artificial product itself, huh? I think, and I know that I'm by no means an authority on this matter, that the archetypal form of perfection itself is imagination, and it's the closest to the framework of existentialism that we now call reality. I mean whoever produced the "reality" we see today must have imagined it with his "imagination" at some point.
Anderson has been very aberrant with all his works. Just when everybody thought Anderson can't think of anything but Tenenbaums in his every other movie, he delivered The Grand Budapest Hotel that boasts off the cognitive versatility that man possesses. For Moonrise Kingdom, I think people have been criticizing it for its similarity to Anderson's previous moves, except Fantastic Mr. Fox, in the production proceedings. I have to slightly agree with this claim, but I'd phrase more like, "Anderson has his own way of seeing things." Moonrise Kingdom doesn't really fit into any genre that prevails on the planet. It's not drama for me, except for the nostalgia—like remembering my ex-girlfriend whom I met before you grew them, if you know what I mean. With all the silly things that this movie shows, I still believe that this movie is not for anybody under 15; they can watch it, sure, but for the proper comprehension of its record player, latrine, binoculars, pebbles, Edward Norton (all of him), Captain Sharp & Social Services, raven, and literally so many things.
From this, I would like to make a point: While Anderson adopts the same strategy of reflecting things from his perspective and view of the cinema and the world, he shows his perspective in so many different ways and with so many symbolizations that his emblem doesn't really remain static. I mean I wouldn't take Moonrise Kingdom to be either of drama, comedy, or adventure. It was exploratory, but that exploration had nothing to do with camping, lighting fires, and so on; it had more to do with exploring yourself, your childish predilections, and eventually learning the mature out of that. We all must know this if we've ever experienced infatuation(s) in the very early phase of our life. Everybody thinks the ideal way, where the quest for being sardonic is trashed away for a while and the idealized view of the "self" and the "generalized" is presented for eternal edification. This, just this, even accounts for the nourishment and sustenance of conscience. I know this has all turned philosophical but see, that's the groundwork Anderson wished to induce. Anderson knows that all minds don't sync in uniformity, and he's not trying to invert that. He's only giving you something that sis completely awry of the trend. Why keep everything close to how it happens in the real world? Why not invent something, be ahead of everyone else and called a fool, but then get praised for being one of the finest film-makers of all-time? I'd totally go for that route.
Anderson is one of the very few film-makers alive who really aim for novelty. Even among those handful, Anderson's scripts, and directorial endeavors are by far the most distinguishable, and this really qualifies him as a film-maker. I'm really not kidding by saying that naming the chef in a single bite is nearly impossible. So when they say that glitter is to Anderson as everything-else is to Hollywood (I'm sorry I just made that up), they're truly saying something.
Please don't think of the man as obsessed with pre-pubescent kids; he's just trying to make a point. And he's so good with that than even after audiences like me know that this is all melodramatic, and miles away from pure sentimentalism, they cannot get rid of getting emotional about it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've loved him since always, and he continues to surprise me with everything he brings on.