Aaron Tracy

I just don't understand the venom that some critics reserve for Anderson.

When it feels like 90% of movies these days are formulaic, IP-driven sequels or comic books, why would anyone who loves movies get mad about a filmmaker expressing a personal vision, even if that vision doesn't perfectly jive with yours?

I think critics who say Wes Anderson's films are all the same and demean them as the cinematic equivalent of a corduroy suit are missing how much range he actually has.

The four doll stories he made for Netflix are a great example of this.

The wonderful story of Henry Sugar, for instance, is upbeat and vibrant and basically a morality tale with a super happy ending.

It also has one of the all-time great setups.

Gentlemen, I am a man who can see without using his eyes.

He was a small man, about 60, with a white mustache and a curious matting of black hair growing all over the outsides of his ears.

He seemed perfectly serious.

That's Anderson's first Netflix adaptation of Dahl.

His final one, Poison, with basically the same cast, is the opposite movie.

Downbeat, dark, muted, with a very unhappy ending, exposing the cruelty and bigotry of the main character.

And when you think about it, this wide range of tone and plot and feeling is kind of perfect for adapting the work of a problematic author like Dahl.

Roald Dahl could be sweet and caring and loving and did a remarkable amount for charity and to make children's lives better all over the world.

But according to some of those closest to him, he could also be mean-spirited and sometimes cruel.

And of course we know about his prejudice.

So what does Anderson do?

He gives us both.

What I like most about these adaptations is how Anderson remains so faithful to Dahl's writing, while seamlessly incorporating his own distinctive voice.

Here's Anderson on a Zoom roundtable for Netflix on how he went about the adaptation.