I don't know if I'm correct in assuming this, but my guess is that the reason that the "Nazis" are so Keystone cop-ish is that we are seeing the story through the eyes of a teenage girl. Perhaps if we are seeing it through the lens of an older man or woman it would be a very different perception and telling (with actual brutish nazis). -This likely doesn't change your enjoyment but it's good to realize that the writer/director had reasons beyond simple ornamentation for portraying certain things the way he did.
I doubt it. Maybe one can make an argument that a teenage girl might lighten the story a bit, but the force was even called the Zig Zags. If that's not supposed to be as cutesy as the Mexico-shaped birthmark on Agatha's face, then I've lost all ability to spot bullshit that I thought I had. I can't imagine we're supposed to suspend disbelief to such an extent as to think that the girl got the name of the force incorrect, as it should be a well documented part of history in that universe. Even with all that, I'd be willing to forgive if the movie had things like plot points, for example. Probably the worst thing I've seen in a Wes Anderson movie was the part where old Zero is crying about Agatha's death, an obvious indication that it's important in the story (see e.g. Chekhov's gun principle), but then it figures exactly 0% into the story (same goes for Gustave). The story isn't about sacrifice; it isn't about change; it isn't about mystery; so far as I can tell it is literally pointless. Hence, my critique about christmas ornaments, beautiful things that serve no purpose other than decoration and nostalgia. This movie is a live action cartoon (in fact, Anderson did voice overs for all the story boards himself long before the movie was shot, making it literally a cartoon) that lacks even the depth of a good Bugs Bunny classic.
What you want from an auteur is hardly ever what you get or should get. Is your complaint that WA did not give this film the solemn treatment that such a travesty as WW2 deserved? I think he spells it out pretty clearly and your comment is appropriate but still misses the point, though the point may not offer any respite, because you are demanding something from a work that it doesn't offer. I think this film is truly about what WA feels his job is as an artist, and addressing concerns about him approaching something, anything with a lil more gravitas. I think the hammer hidden underneath the sculpted sugar is the work itself and the journey. Life is almost constant tragedy (it begins and ends with his formal expose of a lifetime of grief felt by Zero) and, somehow, in a film set in Europe before the onslaught of World War 2, he manages to avoid almost any horrors, and instead focuses on a little world full of wonder, creating his most immaculate and wonderous film yet. This isn't set with the excuse of being around WW2 to bring about drama and desecrate the memories of the tragically slaughtered while giving us more "suffering porn." The fact that the fascists are rising in power is a central component to the film, that the world we enjoy cannot even dare to exist under brutes such as the nazis. His treatment of them seems less to me as "Keystone Cops" but more so that he feels everyone on earth is a child, that this is a good thing, and they are the most horrid children of all, brutish, cruel, dim-witted, and, worse yet, armed. You may feel that this is disrespectful, I feel that this is in memoriam of a people almost completely eradicated by the whims of a few childish sociopaths and a homage to an idealized culture destroyed. We all surround ourselves with these little worlds and strive to defend them against brutish forces and this is the lesson that is still so relevant and that continues today. I just finished Fanny and Alexander last night, it was probably an enormous influence on WA, but I think this final monologue] summarizes his ethos. There's always room to critique, of course, but I don't think you're being quite just. also this too: [this film is] about christmas ornaments, beautiful things that serve no purpose other than decoration and nostalgia.
Also, Gustav's death is absolutely a part of the story. It doesn't happen too far removed from the events of the plot. Much like Royal's death in Tenenbaums, it occurs after the plot resolves, therefore giving us the satisfaction of knowing that he enjoyed the resolution, even if only briefly. Then, as the war escalates and his charms no longer suffice as a shield he is killed. Old Zero says something akin to "He was a man out if time with his era," and as such his death is almost merciful given what would have come to pass. -Died in his prime. The irony is that the war that killed Gustav will now make Zero a very wealthy man. There was plenty of plot in this film, interesting characters etc. It's definitely fantastical and even ornamental, but like the best art those ornaments have representation behind them. Two thumbs up, even with the pseudo SS "zigzags." But I can see that if you wanted a film with actual nazi's that wasn't essentially a dreamscape remembrance, you'd be disappointed. Watched it again last night. It didn't disappoint with a second viewing either.Zero is crying about Agatha's death, an obvious indication that it's important in the story (see e.g. Chekhov's gun principle), but then it figures exactly 0% into the story
-at the end of the film Jude Laws character asks Zero why he still keeps the Grand Budapest, is it to stay close to Gustav? The answer was no, it's to remain close to the memory of Agatha. I'd say that her death plays an important role in the film. If she were still alive, that sad old man never meets the author.
The only problem I had the first time around, or only large problem, was the shoot-out scene in the hotel which seemed gratuitous, ridiculous, and not adequately explained (why would we all just start shooting at each other in a hotel? just because someone else is shooting?) the character motivations didn't seem to work enough there. However it was amusing which I think was partially the point.