The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) ****/5: A well made film from a technical point of view but the comedy tends to downplay some of the more serious elements.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is a very good film from a technical point of view. In some cases, though, the film comes across as a show piece instead of a film with a genuine impact. There is a sense of imbalance especially where the comedic and picturesque elements take away from the moments of genuine emotion or the genuine moments. I was impressed by the historical approach taken by the story.

This film takes place in a fictional land locked country  called Zubrowka where the Grand Budapest Hotel is located. The film traces the history of the hotel through several characters. The author (Tom Wilkinson and Judd Apatow) that chronicles it all based on the story told by an older Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham). The story centres on the relationship between a younger Moustafa and the famous concierge/manager that embodied the character of the hotel, Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes). After the death of one of his old lady lovers, Madame D (Tilda Swinton), that frequented the hotel Gustave is caught up in a web of intrigue and conspiracy when it comes to her estate particularly as the old lady was very fond of him.

Positives

There are several positives to take from the film particularly when you consider the techniques employed by director Wes Anderson  to tell the story. Although all of the individuals are fictional the historical approach taken here captures the decline of the hotel from a prestigious hotel to a decadent body limping along to its own destruction. Telling the story involves several characters  such as the author who captures the story as it’s told by Zero. F. Murray Abraham does well here and storytelling seems to be his forte. The character of the older Zero played by Abraham reminded me of his role as Antonio Salieiri in Amadeus (1984), a man who fell from grace. Just as in Amadeus Abraham as Zero clarifies and clears up many obfuscations that were passed down via rumour or legend. The legend is never what it seems.  Fiennes as Gustave is superb because it’s clear that his spirit or will embodied the hotel in its glory days and his death probably signaled that the hotel was about to enter into a state of decline only to be preserved by the loyalty of those like Zero. As an institutional history the film is very good although the description of decline has been done many times  before as the decadent institution or body is brought to life by its past. The past always becomes more lively when the present or future seems bleak. This is the case here. In the end, therefore, this story is well told but does that make it great? No it does not make the film great but it depends on how pronounced it is and what it has to say about humanity.

The spirit or will of Gustave is brought forth well by Fiennes. He is the focal point of the story so what does he represent?  He is more like a civilizing force in this film and it’s no surprise that Zero, a poor immigrant, is caught up in wonder by this man’s civilizing gestures. As everything falls apart or when the world seems savage or cruel one can rely on the decency of Gustave. His mannerisms more or less reflect a sense of steady resolve, control and the willingness to stand up for the civilized code which Zero said as from another era. The era Zero is probably referring to are the values of the aristocracy. Before the rise of the bourgeoisie the values of the landed aristocracy were considered the ideal in European civilization.  We can see how external elements such as World War 2 threw these values out of the window. The most important external element that challenges Gustave’s civility is the intrigue that comes with the claims to the estate of the deceased Madame D. Her son Dmitri (Adrian Brody) and his henchman (Willem Dafoe) are malevolent forces in this film as they confront Gustave who appears as an outsider. In the end Gustave’s ability  to be a civilizing force is normally stands him in good stead because his good will spreads to others. He civilizing demeanour does come across as condescending in parts as Zero, as an immigrant, knows all too well but the film does make clear that at moments when it is required to stand up for what is right and decent you can rely on Gustave. This becomes very costly towards the end but in certain situations I would rather have a Gustave defending me than someone to eager to compromise or sell out.

The Grand Budapest Hotel could also be titled the adventures of Zero and Gustave. It has the feel of an adventure story particularly as the hotel takes a back seat to their adventures. The moments of adventure also contribute to the picturesque and comedic elements. The hotel seems more like an avenue to cement their bond.  These picturesque and comedic moments are lit up by a bright colour palette and lively music. I can see a cartoon series emerge from all this. There is one major dramatic scene and the bright colours are replaced by black and white which is a sign that there will be no grand escape from this particular scenario. No positive civil demeanour is sufficient in such a case.  The black and white sequence was a very affecting moment and the moment of true insight aside from Gustave’s moralizing.

There are several transitions for Zero and Gustave regarding their social development. Bell boy becomes manager, manager becomes owner of the establishment etc. These kind of advances fit well within a capitalist framework particularly as the prominence of Gustave as a concierge makes him into a prominent petty bourgeois that keeps the establishment going through his management skills. The petty bourgeois that makes capital function on its daily grind.

Great ensemble cast. This is important in such a short film where every scene must have an impact. The presence of some of these acting greats makes some of these scenes work although they come across as just stylistic instead of effective at a core level.

Lively music

Negatives

The primary negative of this film for me was the superficiality that manifests itself in many areas.  Although 

Gustave is a prominent character in the film one wonders why his presence is so affecting particularly if the history of the hotel should be more prominent. By focusing too much on the adventures of Gustave and Zero the history of the hotel becomes murkier. We understand that Gustave is prominent in the hotel business as a concierge but why should the film occupy so much time regarding his adventures. The film would have been more effective and grounded as a fictional historical piece about the hotel by introducing several characters and that came and went.  Although they do document the passage of time it is due more to external events such as war or the introduction of a communist government etc than the actual hotel itself. I never understood why the hotel went into such decline apart from the efforts of Zero to keep it up. One takes for granted that the introduction of the communists so is it that the guests from Western Europe never returned? How did Zero do as a concierge? It all ends with Gustave and I get that he probably embodied the life of the hotel in its glory years but it still does not capture the decline particularly as we are introduced to an older author who must have chronicled the final nail in the coffin. There are three periods mentioned but only the period that featured Gustave comes to have much bearing on the picture. Zero acts more like a storyteller but I would have liked to hear about how the hotel progressed after his death until it was finally shut down for good. The history of the hotel is therefore not as complete because of the great reliance on Gustave’s adventures. 

When Gustave and Zero are engaged in their adventures the hotel takes a backseat more or less. The first 30-40 minutes are therefore the best because we get to know more about the hotel but the rest of the film deals more with Gustave’s personal troubles than life at the hotel. This is why Zero’s story seems so tied into that of Gustave that his story is not given the necessary treatment although I found him more of an interesting character. Gustave comes across for the most part as a caricature or  raving moralist with very condescending tones apart from a few moments. He seemed like the typical lackey of a junker aristocrat or the servant that preserves the integrity of his master. This is why his portrayal rests so much on a comedy instead of thoughtful examination. The comedic elements drive him as a character and make him seem not so effective in serious moments. The only serious moment of the film comes towards the end and one believes a point is being made about honour lost in the sea of chaos however the situation plays in such a similar way to a previous one that it is not as effective. There should have been more build up instead of making it just a send off. There should have been more black and white scenes during the film to emphasize the serious nature of certain episodes and so it would be something that we carry with us even while Gustave is on his merry adventures.  The tragic moment towards the end comes out of nowhere and is not really called for. More serious moments during the film instead of only at the end would have provided some balance  to the structure of the film instead of skewing it so heavily with comedy and caricature throughout. Madame D. could have been portrayed in a more serious light before her demise because it is clear that she was very fearful of something. All this is brushed aside for the sake of comedy and in the beginning she seems more like a caricature or one of his many lovers.  Anderson could have found a way to make the tone more serious in her case.  When Gustave insults Zero for instance he is revealed as a typical prejudiced white European male but there is no effective response from his servant Zero. The only effective response offered by Zero is some comedic banter regarding Gustave possibly flirting with his wife or girlfriend at the time. Zero does not demonstrate that he can stand effectively on his own two feet and so we might as well have been watching Driving Miss Daisy. A lot of the moments, therefore, called for serious interaction but are brushed aside in the name of comedy.

Some of the A list stars in this ensemble piece are not very effective. They come across as mere caricatures in roles that will not enhance their reputations. What was comedic is seeing some of these American actors trying to assume a European air with little or no effect.

In the end this is still a well made film but the superficiality of some of the situations did not need to be so because they could have been more developed beyond Gustave and thereby create a more meaningful portrayal of the Grand Budapest Hotel in its entirety. It could even still retain some of its comedic flair in the process.