Wes Anderson’s “Moonrise Kingdom” Is Not Sadomasochistic Kiddie Porn

Photo courtesy of Focus Features

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Moonrise Kingdom
Focus Features
97 minutes

There are a lot of way you could describe Wes Anderson’s latest comedy: Quirky. Poetic. Record-breaking. Precious and self aware to the point that it damn near smothers itself, even. But “blood-stained child pornography” is not one of them.

Before I get into the whole kiddie porn/not kiddie porn thing, let’s get this out of the way: You shoud see Moonrise Kingdom this weekend. It’s visually sublime and punch-drunkenly funny. Anderson takes his patented directorial style (the controlled kookiness, the smooth pans, the color coordination, the deadpan everything) out for what might be its definitive spin. And aside from a few bizarre narrative stumbles in the last 15 minutes, the movie is a straight shot of single malt wit. Also, the performances are uniformly terrific, with all parties, from Tilda Swinton to Bill M.F. Murray, nimbly straddling the thin line between relatability and utter freakshow.

I’d now like to focus on a scene you’re sure to hear a lot about, even from—perhaps especially from—those who haven’t bothered to see the movie. The plot centers around Suzy Bishop (Kara Hayward) and Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman), two New England preteens who run away from respective homes. Suzy is an emotionally disturbed ginger prone to attacking her peers. Sam is a bespectacled, air-rifle savvy orphan who’s been duly ostracized by his fellow “khaki scouts.”

While evading Suzy’s parents and an accompanying search party, the two runaways shack up for a night on a secluded beach. After some mild lake-swimming, they strip down to their prepubescent skivvies and unwind by tanning, reading, and chatting in hushed, clip monotones. The pair lock eyes and shuffle up next to each other, simmering with stonefaced but concupiscent intentions. Both find themselves in uncharted waters. The tweenage lovebirds start French-kissing, trial-and-error style. Suzy laconically comments on a quick change to an unfamiliar part of Sam’s body. “It feels hard,” she murmurs. Sam’s more focused on her chest, nervously delighting at his first shot at clearing second base. “I think they’re gonna grow more,” she says, with the kind of muted enthusiasm you typically get from a PGA Tour commentator. They take a pause to pierce Suzy’s ears so she can wear some jewlery he’s given her; she shrieks as a crayon-red line of blood runs smoothly down her right cheek. As the adrenaline and pain start to fade, their maiden hook-up continues apace.

It is a sequence that practically begs to fall prey to the no-holds-barred meme wrath of the internet. But that would be a result of crude, lazy readings of the film’s gentle but provocative take on budding sexuality. While it is indeed fun to giggle at this as if it were Wes Anderson’s diabolical homage to Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom, the scene is an admirable meditation on the fact that kids fumble to come to terms with their sexual desires long before parents or bodies would like them to. It plays less like a spicy loss of innocence, and more like a frequently overlooked extension of it.

Leave it to Wes Anderson to turn the moment—half-naked children groping at each other, bleeding, talking about hard-ons—into something that feels at once playful, tasteful, and bracingly real.

Moonrise Kingdom gets a wider release on Friday, June 1. The film is rated PG-13 for sexual content and smoking. Click here to get local showtimes and tickets.

Click here for more movie and TV features from Mother Jones. To read more of Asawin’s reviews, click here.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate