A Incrível História de Henry Sugar

'The Wonderful Story Of Henry Sugar (2023)' is one of four short film adaptations of lesser-known Roald Dahl stories to be directed by Wes Anderson, who has perhaps finally achieved unabashed twee overload with what can only be described as four near-lethal injections of the purest concentrate of his trademark style, and dumped unceremoniously on Netflix. This piece tells the story of a rich man who one day finds the key to becoming even richer: an account of a man who is able to see without using his eyes and the method needed to achieve this. It's pretty much a word-for-word translation of the source material, with narration that runs constantly and bounces from character to character (who often tell us, the audience, about what they're doing while they're doing it). It's all third person, too, so even Henry Sugar refers to himself as such. This is because the whole thing is actually being read by Dahl himself, who appears intermittently to frame the story as a true account of something he himself was once told. As the tale is spoken to us, the sets deconstruct themselves around the actors in a complex dance that's quite a sight to behold. The whole thing feels like an incredibly complicated stage play, complete with prop-wielding stage hands and just off-screen costume swaps, which is definitely a unique approach to take. The pacing is so fast that the flick often leaves you breathless, primarily because every single character is talking like they're absolutely desperate to get out of there but can't leave until they've finished their part. At the same time, though, it ultimately feels a bit too long for its own good. After all, there's only so much verbal bombardment a person can take, as entertaining as that bombardment may be. Ultimately, this is a refreshingly distinct and expertly crafted short film that kind of represents too much of a good thing. It's enjoyable, but overwhelming.

As much as this is pure Uncut 1100% pure white as the driven snow Wes Anderson, including one of his most thrilling tracking shots and rear-screen projection that made me laugh hard enough for the neighbors to sit up and probably want to check it out for themselves, it is also a perfect distillation of Roald Dahl's perfectly eccentric and wildly over-elaborate storytelling and construction of one plot into another.

Maybe you haven't read Dahl in a while if you were one of those kids who read him a lot (I know he has a reputation today, but he could objectively write comedy and quirk like nobody's business), but even if that's so the recognition of his voice will come back to you like a long dormant dream. It's also fascinating to see the clockwork-theatrical staging from Asteroid City taken even further. I'd ask him why he doesn't direct theater, but then he would look at me like I was a fool - why do that when he has the overwhelming power of control of the Frame of Cinema at his disposal?

The thing about this Henry Sugar film that I like on top of the perfectly calibrated balancing act between very human comedy and quixotic and deadpan fantasy that we know Anderson can do in his sleep (though I imagine as easy as it looks it takes a lot of concentration to get right with DP Yeoman), the performances are just right and add to the flavor of the piece. Call it shallow, but I just enjoy how soothing the voices of Cumberbatch, Dev Patel, Kingsley and even to an extent Fiennes are, like they could almost be ASMR-ing you with the Dahl words that get spun like a marathon sprinter who is running in this precision that dazzles you because it almost is inexplicable (just like, I might posit for comparison, what the men can see with their eyes closed after concentrating hard for days and years on end).

Last but not least: Benedict Cumberbatch in a dress = most unlikely kind of attractive walking cartoon in a dress since Bugs Bunny.

If Wes Anderson decided to pen a bedtime story, it might just look like "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar." This 38-minute marvel weaves a tapestry of mystery and whimsy that leaves you both tickled and intrigued.

This isn't a full-blown comedy, but it certainly doesn't shy away from its share of wry humor. The script sprinkles witty quips and playful moments throughout the tale, giving the audience some delightful chuckles. It's a nod to Anderson's signature style - a dash of quirkiness that keeps you grinning.

Benedict, in his first foray into Anderson's cinematic world, shines as Henry Sugar. His portrayal adds depth to this peculiar character, and he's complemented by a stellar supporting cast who bring their own unique flair to the story.

"The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar" exudes a distinct theatrical vibe. The set design and the way the scenes are presented feel like a live theater performance. It's a refreshing departure from the conventional cinematic experience, adding a layer of whimsical charm.

This film doesn't aim to tug at your heartstrings or deliver profound messages; it's here to entertain. It's a bedtime story for the child in all of us, a light-hearted adventure that captivates without overwhelming.

In true Wes Anderson fashion, "The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar" dances to its own whimsical tune, making it a delightful short film that transports you to a world where the ordinary becomes extraordinary.

I think we can all agree that the format of this 'content' is very different from what we are used to. On the one hand, it has the features of an "audible book". But it most certainly also has features that fit with a stage play. Actually, it seems like a hybrid of the two, which I for certain have never seen before.

And whilst it is different, people tend to start agreeing with extreme ratings: i.e. They either say they like it very well and give it a rating of 10 stars, or they hate it and go for a 1 star rating. And since I do not want my review being tainted by chosing either of the two camps, I simply chose to not give it an IMDb rating. This so that either camp can agree with my review instead of a rating...

That this is some new type of content is obvious. I personally think it is more a natural evolution of (1) reading books, to (2) audiobooks, and now (3) this new format.

I think a term of "cinematic book" may fit with what we see here: a book that is read to an audience by using renowned actors in a format that fits cinema.

With many new things, I was confused at what exactly I was watching when I started this content. And honestly said, it took me several minutes to adjust to it. As an avid bookreader myself, I have enjoyed quite a number of Roald Dahl's books. Not being a fan of audiobooks myself, I never ever listened to his books. But this "cinematic book" is just a different experience. There is so much added richness to it, that I really started to enjoy it. So rich actually, that I had trouble keeping up with the fast-paced storytelling. There is so much to see in each of the different sets that it is pretty difficult to ingest all you hear and see. And I think this will be even a bigger challenge for viewers from non-english speaking countries which need to rely on subtitles. So, I think it may be a recommendation to (1) first "watch" it with a primary focus on listening to the story, and (2) a second time to enjoy the richly detailed scenes.

Concluding, I think we witness here the evolution of how we may "read" books. An evolution that first started with the introduction of audiobooks, which we now see evolve in a content genre that I can describe best as a "cinematic book". And whilst it takes some moments to get used to, I definitely want to see more of it in the future.

The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is a great short film that doesn't waste a second of its shorter run time and definitely works as a short film in a way a feature length film simply cannot. The energy, the pace and the complexity comes together so well in an exhilarating, immaculate story of kindness.

Unusually, this is a cast who are mostly new to the world of Wes but Benedict Cumberbatch, Dev Patel and Ben Kingsley are note perfect here in a way that hopefully results in many more future collaborations. Richard Ayoade on the other hand, feels surprisingly underutilised.

Wes Anderson has never had more control of the frame or everything inside it. It's standard issue that it's going to be gorgeous to look at and rife with detail but the real strength of his direction here is the way it's able to feel so theatrical in its construction yet still be inherently cinematic.