Fantastic Mr. Fox piece 1st work of film studies.

1. Fantastic Mr. Fox
In 2004 JoeRoth and Revolution studios bought the film rights to Fantastic Mr.
Fox and in 2006 Mark Mothersbaugh said that he was working on the soundtrack.
Wes Anderson a star in his own right took the role as director with colleague
Henry Selick who I the pastworked with Wes Anderson on ‘The Life Aquatic with
Steve Zissou as an animation director. Wes Anderson said he took the role
because Roald Dahl was one of his heroes. After following main details fromthe
novel Wes Anderson added major scenes beforeand after the middle section of
the novel. Mark Gustafson replaced Henry Selick after he went on to pursue
Caroline in February 2006.
In 2007 Anderson reviled that voice work had begun on characters. Wes Anderson
choseto record the voices outsiderather than in a studio: “we went out in a
forest…wentinto an attic and even a stable.” They wentunderground for some
settings and he tried to incorporate a spontaneous sideto his voice overs. Wes
Anderson wanted to incorporate real trees and real sand to be used in the film
but it was all miniature. The film’s setting was influenced by where Roald Dahl
lived (Great Missenden). The films mixes severalforms of animation however its
primary focus is on stop motion. Animation took place in London on Stage C at 3
Mills Studio. Itis also believed that Wes Anderson acted out certain scenes of the
film and sent them to Selick via iPhone.
Firstly my opinion of the film is that it is a very good stop motion piece. I really
enjoyed the film and would’vegiven it a personal and respectable 8/10 for
entertainment and professionalvalues. I thoughtthe film was creative and
interesting and engaged me throughout. I liked the detail and precision of the
stop motion animation in the film. I thought it made the film moreunique and
almost gaveit a visual-book stylefeel in the sensethat you could imagine each
line being written by Roald Dahl as you watched the film.
Secondly I also liked Wes Anderson’s Fantastic Mr. FoxbecauseI thought it had a
very relatable and personalfeel to whata Roald Dahlbook used to make you feel

2. when you used to read one. I also like the film because I thought it was
entertaining and fun to watch it had a slight humour to it but the outstanding
voice overs and attention to detail made it easy to watch.
I think that the film had a particular World War 2 feel to it. Even though the book
was written in 1970 butpublished in 1974, theWorld War 2 feel to it is ever
present. I can see this through the examples of clothing and furnitureused in the
film. For example the furnitureshown and the clothes worn arevery old
fashioned. This could be a direct intention of Wes Anderson or it could be to
representwhen the book was written. As well as this I think that wecan see that
the attention to detail means that it obviously was intentional.
I also think that we can see the WW2 style in the language used by all characters
across the film. It’s moreformaland not the faster, aggressivelanguageweuse
today. Although this is implemented when character usethe word “cuss” too
finish off a sentence instead of swearing which might have been an intentional
feature of Wes Anderson to make the film more fitting to the 21st
century. Finally
I think that the WW2 style film is presentin the way how they have to dig and
hide underground which were ever present features of the Second World War.
‘Dig for Britain was a popular propaganda piece used in WW2 to encourage
people to plant and grow crops to get beat starvation this is present in the film as
the animals dig and fight to find food to prevent starvation. Hiding underground
was a prevalent factor in the film as during WW2 the useof Anderson shelters
and air raid shelters werea factor of puresurvivalduring bombing spree’s from
Axis forces. I think Anderson intentionally played to these factors to emphasise
what Roald Dahl had once wrote about.