The Reel Critic - 10/03/09

Despite the fact that Wes Anderson’s new film stars an assortment of furry creatures who scamper, scurry and crawl in the dirt, the characters of “Fantastic Mr. Fox” bear more similarities to the oddball humans of Anderson’s other films than to the actual animals they are supposed to be. Bill Murray and Jason Schwartzman make their usual appearances and play their usual idiosyncratic characters. The customary pretension and insecurities can familiarly be seen resonating in the characters’ boasts and belligerence, even if it is out of animals that should not actually be able to articulate English words. These memorable Anderson quirks have been equally alienating and endearing to audiences in the past, and the films that have resulted generally achieve a zealous cult following rather than widespread, blockbuster success. Without question, though, “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” in melding the Wes Anderson method with the Roald Dahl children’s story, combines the best of both eccentrics to present a film that fully realizes its comic potential.

With an all-star cast headlined by George Clooney and Meryl Streep, “Fantastic Mr. Fox” recounts the attempted and failed reformation of the title character. Mr. Fox (Clooney), embodying his animal persona, begins the film with the much-maligned vocation of thief. Like all husbands with a familial commitment, however, he must soon give up the fun and perils of the high life for the boredom and security of the desk job. But as his son grows up and the tedium of his career overwhelms him, Mr. Fox begins to question the life he’s been living.

Determined to prove his worth, he undertakes the dangerous task of stealing from the three most notoriously cruel farmers around. When the farmers discover the robber in their midst, however, Mr. Fox’s surreptitious activities endanger the rest of the animal world. As the animals fight for their survival, a didactic tale emerges that ultimately moralizes on the value of being different.

Early in the film, as Mr. Fox asks his lawyer’s opinion, he says, “I understand what you’re saying, and your comments are valuable, but I’m gonna ignore your advice.” This statement, although referring to an entirely different question, embodies Anderson’s determination to stick to a style that has failed to resonate with viewers in the past because of its refusal to portray realistic characters. Instead, he has resolutely stuck to stories in which humanity is embodied by peculiarity. While “Fantastic Mr. Fox” bears the classic trademark eccentricities of an Anderson film, it is apt to appeal to a wider audience than his past offerings.

It is not the use of the creative genius of Dahl that will draw in new viewers, or the fluffy cuteness of some of the creatures inhabiting the film. Instead, Anderson’s use of animation as opposed to live-action is the integral element that makes the movie work. Audiences that would generally shy away from such unrealistically bizarre characters will be able to digest the strangeness in the form of a puppet fox, an apossum or even a psychotic rat. Ironically, these traits being displayed by animals marks an even more improbable story line than usual, but with audiences approaching the film already knowing the tale will contain a collection of animated animals, they will not be disappointed when the characters bear no signs of genuine humans.

Able to finally recognize the likeability of Wes Anderson films, audiences will likely be inclined to reassess his previous work, for, despite the strangeness threaded through his films, they do in fact find truth and sincere humanity in their emotional endings — compassion, honesty and dignity. “Fantastic Mr. Fox” is no exception. It stands out, however, in infusing its usual idiosyncrasies into characters that live beneath the ground. Ironically, that is where these most definitely inhuman characters find those most human of qualities.