MovieChat Forums > Asteroid City (2023) Discussion > Why the 'Meta' Structure to the Movie?

Why the 'Meta' Structure to the Movie?


A Playwright (Edward Norton) comes onscreen to introduce us to his fictional play 'Asteroid City' which we get to watch (with act and scene numbers included) and the 'action' of the fictional play is interspersed with (B&W) scenes of the actors and writer and their observations.

I understand that Anderson does 'odd' movies and that is fine, but having an insight into writing and acting (within the movie) gives the show a 'Meta' vibe, or a 'Play within a movie' vibe, so much so that there are 'boxes within boxes' or a 'Russian doll' configuration to the film.

Fine and good, but apart from simply being odd, does the 'Meta' presentation of the movie serve any actual purpose?

Please answer below, I would appreciate any comments.

reply

Also don’t forget that the structure is a television show that documents an author writing a play that doesn’t exist and a director who is directing the play. And the actual movie is the play. It’s one of Andersons oddest films.

reply

I've noticed for some reason hipsters and douchebags seem to love movies and tv shows that are "meta" and break the fourth wall. I suppose dumb people who think they're smart find that sort of nonsense clever.

reply

This is pretty much the reason right here.

reply

Wes just likes both meta narratives and low budget theater so this was a way to incorporate both of those. It made more sense for Grand Budapest where it's supposed to be about memories so drenching it in layers of narrative distance made sense. Here I thought the regular color scenes held up just fine so I didn't need it.

reply

I'm sick of the meta crap and the "Act 1" "Act 2" stuff too. It was annoying in The French Dispatch and it's annoying here too

reply

I really thought this made Asteroid City feel like Anderson's most esoteric film. I kept waiting for some point to arise out of this structure but it never did. It was just weird for the sake of weird.


If anyone's interested, I reviewed the movie my youtube channel. Appreciate any feedback. Trying to improve -https://youtu.be/5JI2yNaqrIU

reply

Wes Anderson just likes to do stuff like this, "THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL"
,and stuuff this way..just loves stories within stories within stories..

reply

Perhaps because it parallels the action of the story? We see several disparate groups come together for a big event, which becomes overshadowed by a momentous event, and we watch them form deep bonds with one another. Then, in the blink of an eye, they all depart for parts unknown, in most cases never to see one another again. In the same way, the playwright, director, actors, TV crew, etc. all come together, each from their own disparate world, and become a tightly-knit single unit, only to break up and for the most part never interact again once the play is over.

There could also be a connection to the layers of the characters. The parents guiding the children, who are in turn sharing their own creations, only to in turn be guided by the military, all of whom are ultimately at the whim of the extraterrestrial. There is something of a parallel structure there as well, with the director guiding the actors, who are sharing their own interpretations of what the playwright has created, all overseen by the TV crew, who are ultimately at the whim of the audience.

In short, both are metaphors for life. We meet people, become incredibly close, then suddenly break apart, never again to interact.

Who's to say?

reply

That's well said indeed 'FilmBuff' By all means do post again.

reply

Looks like filler to me.

Reminded of that song by the Talking Heads Road to Nowhere where Bryne said it was light so he added that beginning.

This felt light and the extra stuff just sort of fattened it up a bit.

I would have enjoyed it better without it personally.

reply

Yes 'parkerbot' I have to agree with you on that one - movies are - by their very nature - works of fiction.

As a result I don't see the need of the filmmaker - Anderson or anyone else - to bend themselves into odd contortions to point out the fact - It might have been better told as a 'straight' - albeit fictional - story.

If the runtime was in need of 'filler' as you suggest - it might not have hurt to simply introduce another quirky subplot to be resolved - and thereby deal with the issue on it's own terms.

But that said, everyone is an armchair critic, and I never made a single penny as a filmmaker.

So it goes. Better luck next time, Wes.

reply