A few months ago, Wes Anderson released a set of three seventeen minute short films to Netflix, and one forty minute feature length. The films are all Anderson’s adaptations of author Roald Dahl’s short stories and writings.
With these films I feel like Anderson was able to reclaim his specific style in a way that is more exact and yet free than in his most recent blockbusters. I can’t remember the last time a big name in the entertainment industry like Anderson took the time to create any film shorter than 40 minutes other than guest directing an episode of television. I think there are a lot of benefits to what I would consider a “low stakes” project for a big name filmmaker. In a blockbuster setting, it’s difficult to stray away from what you know works and experiment because there is so much time and effort and especially money going into the outcome. Of course, Anderson is a very specific director and will do what is necessary for his vision to come to life, but I’m sure even he has to hesitate for some projects.That is what I feel like the audience gets in these shorts, no hesitation. We get to see the benefits of the short form, such as Anderson taking more risks, experimenting with narrative forms and dialogue, set design; viewing how a great filmmaker does not “need” 3 hours to deliver a compelling story to the audience. We get to see this specifically in The Swan.
Anderson places all of his trust into the star of this short, Rupert Friend, and for good reason. Friend portrays the older version of Peter Watson, a young brilliant boy plagued by bullies. What makes this short different from the others in the collection is the way in which Anderson uses mise-en-scene. To start, the lighting and colors of the set are not his usual bright colors, but a muted pallet of yellow-beiges, sage greens, and melancholic blues. Everything in front of the camera is almost a misty haze, reflecting Peter Watson’s recollections of the events that happened to him as a child on this day. Next is the setting itself, set almost like a stage. As Friend moves from location to location, he appears as if he is on a stage, performing a rehearsed routine. The set is following him, people appearing from hidden stage doors as he walks through maze-like stalks of hay, handing over a prop, fixing a costume, and applying makeup. The set is less decorated than what is usually a well groomed and meticulous location typical of Anderson. The sound is very minimal, almost no music, just the sound of footsteps and Friend’s voice. What stands out especially is the dialogue and action on screen. For the entire film, minus one line by young Peter Watson, and an interruption by Ralph Fienes through a monologue, I would say about 12 minutes of the film is just Friend/older Watson speaking. He narrates almost like an audiobook, everything that occurred to Peter Watson on that day, reading the dialogue of the bullies in an imitative voice, and narrating the actions as they occur on screen, all while he acts them out simultaneously. He tells the story, not as him struggling to remember details of the past, but as a rehearsed routine, hence the stage-like setting and demeanor. It feels like a one-man show.
What I think Anderson is speaking to in these decisions is the way in which trauma follows us in our lives. These events happened to Peter Watson as a 13 year old boy but he still re-lives them as a grown man. Bullying and its effects don’t end after you have grown, it stays with you, replaying in your mind. That’s what really adds to this film emotionally. The fact that we don’t see the bullying happening in real time, but recount how it felt, how it still hurts years later. No matter how many times Peter has rehearsed this routine, has gone numb to so much of it, his voice still trembles when he asks his captors to spare an innocent creature.
