The Wonderful Story Of Henry Sugar — A Wes Anderson Film Review
The first fifteen minutes of this 39-minute adaptation of the Roald Dahl story, “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar”, took a long time to get through, not because of how unbearable it was but because of how mentally stimulating it is even after seeing it. The film engaged my senses in a couple of curious ways that had me restarting multiple times to catch what else I might have missed. Even more intriguing are the thought processes and ideas that I believe the film tried exploring.
The plot is a very simple one. It is about a man who stole a book with information about acquiring the skill of seeing without using your eyes. He learns this skill and uses it once for personal gains but feels no fulfilment afterwards. From there, the stories go down a Robinhood route where He decides to use this skill to help people by gambling and using the money he wins to establish facilities that will benefit the sick and needy in society.
While mentally trying to unpack the plot as I cleaned my room, I thought it was simply about dedication, the benefits of focusing on a goal and the not-so-present feeling of fulfilment after you have achieved said goal or about how selfish objectives, in the end, do not give the kind of fulfilment our humanity craves. The aim could also be to pose a few moral questions, such as “What would you do if you worked to possess such a skill? Would you only use it for your gain? After all, you did work to get it, so why not? Or would you use it to help others who need it but cannot acquire it? Do you think Henry Sugar did the right thing? Does cheating the rich of their money to give to the poor absolve him of his crimes?”
Though all the events in this movie left several questions in my mind, the prominent message I believe it tried to send is to reiterate the cliche saying “Money cannot buy happiness”, and this is proven from the beginning of the movie where Henry Sugar is described as an unmarried self-obsessed man without any friends, to the last scenes where he decided to give out the money he makes and is eventually surrounded by the love of friends and even strangers for his “Selfless” actions.
Unlike the regular process where characters interact with each other directly to move the plot forward, this Wes Anderson production adopts a storytelling technique where characters interact with the viewer, looking into the camera while narrating their actions and the events that follow as they occur. I see this ‘Show & Tell’ style as a tool which keeps the viewer within the loop of what is being done, by whom and why it is being done.
Surprisingly, this technique is complemented by the frequent changes of the images in the background, bringing the storytelling to a full circle while still leaving so much for the viewer to ponder. A perfect depiction of this in the movie would be in the scenes where Doctor ZZ Chatterjee narrates his first encounters with Imdad Khan, the first man who acquired the fascinating ability.
The adoption and mixture of the acting style and cinematic production techniques are engrossing because seeing this movie demands full attention. The cinematography engaging your mind and senses, especially your sight, is a pleasantly yet subtle contradiction to the central plot point, which is learning to see without eyes.
Overall, It was such a pleasant watch. I would rate it a solid 8/10. As I await your thoughts on the short film “The Wonderful Story Of Henry Sugar”, Thank you for reading.
