The decision to open The Times BFI 53rd London Film Festival with Wes Anderson’s adaptation of Roald Dahl’s Fantastic Mr. Fox looks more like a reflection on society’s concerns over the past twelve months than a decision based entirely on artistic merit. The escapist mood of an animated comedy resembles the spirit of the 1930s depression era; yet the story of how a character tangles mischievously against rich monopolies, losing all financial stability in the process, is all too contemporary.

It is important to note however that Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) is first of all a riveting work of entertainment and an artistic pinnacle for its director. While Anderson’s fans are full of admiration for Rushmore (1998) or The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), it is this film that opens him up to the larger public. In this Dahl adaptation we find all of the director’s trademarks as well as his unique vision that defines him as an artist, yet both of these are enhanced by a serene clarity that makes that vision truly accessible to both critics and the larger public. What is difficult to assess at this point is whether Anderson has matured or rather simply gone back to what made him want to make films in the first place.

Dahl’s story is about a fox in rural England that keeps stealing from three wealthy farmers: chickens from Boggis, ducks and turkeys from Bunce, apples and cider from Bean. Mr Fox is a bit of a local hero, as all the characters in the book agree that:

‘Boggis and Bunce and Bean
One fat, one short, one lean
These horrible crooks
So different in looks
Were none the less equally mean.’  (Roald Dahl, Fantastic Mr. Fox)

All goes well for some time, until the farmers decide to let all Hell loose in the fields in the search for the thief. They cannot catch him, but they drive the whole animal kingdom into hiding deeper and deeper underground.

The screenplay by Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach, written at Dahl’s very own Gypsy House (courtesy of Mrs Dahl), stays close to the original in both plot and spirit. The farmers are still English, but the animals sound American. Mr. Fox (George Clooney) is rugged but cool, standing upright in his period clothes waiting for the future Mrs Fox (Meryl Streep), a foxy creature who is the only one to put him in his place. After a first unsuccessful date / hunt for chickens in the barn, we find the two of them settled in a modest place underground. He becomes a newspaper columnist, while she is a dedicated housewife and an excellent painter.

You read it right. In Anderson’s film animals are not just anthropomorphised, but behave just like humans. Weasels are estate agents and use mobile phones to contact their clients, badgers are lawyers, rabbits are chefs, the children go to school, have chemistry lessons and play a cricket-like game (watch out for this one!). Production designer, Nelson Lowry, says that Anderson ‘was thinking about human actors’, and it is this particular trait that makes Fantastic Mr. Fox so accessible. As with the original children’s book, this is not a story about animals and humans, but rather it is a satiric fairytale about social behaviour. The animals might live underground, they might have disgusting table manners, but they have the nature and moral integrity of humans.

The proximity to Dahl’s story is apparent throughout the film. The viewer recognises all the twists and turns that are pivotal to the original tale, but the practical manifestation of those actions are truly Anderson’s. The director takes us into a world that is distinctly his, a world that is born out of movies and not literary fairy-tales. When Clooney is detailing Mr Fox’s masterplan to steal from the farmers, we cannot help seeing Danny Ocean from Ocean’s Eleven (2001); when Willem Dafoe’s Rat lights a cigarette we are immediately drawn into a Sergio Leone Western; and when we see Kristofferson (Eric Chase Anderson), Mrs Fox’s nephew, we know we are back with the Tenenbaums. Fantastic Mr. Fox is a labour of love for both Roald Dahl’s book and cinema itself, and hence any diversion from the original text does not feel inappropriate, but rather necessary. Till the very end, anyone who has read the book, will not stop being impressed by how close the film is to the source, and yet still wonder what will happen next.

Beyond the technical adaptation of the work, Anderson’s film shows how resonant Roald Dahl still is for modern audiences. Mr Fox is an expression of the free spirit, unable to escape his true self in spite of all the social conditioning that he is subject to. His main aim is to be someone who excels in what he is truly best at. He may be forced into taking a job as a journalist, he may even be conditioned to think he wants a better house and more income. The truth is he is still a wild animal who is brilliant at digging holes and stealing chickens, and naturally he aims to impress everyone around him through just doing that. The irony is that society condemns him for this very fact.

The question of how humans can be free in a world in which rational decisions lead to the restriction of that freedom has rarely been so eloquently tackled on film. Mr Fox is caught between two key values: love for this family and his personal freedom. To satisfy his role as a good father and husband he needs to put his criminal past behind him. In doing that, however, he abandons all hope of living the life he wants to live forever. What the film asks then is what happens when an individual tries to reconcile both. Mr Fox becomes a sort of an anti-hero. Instead of satisfying his needs, he rebels against both. The secrecy regarding his actions inevitably comes into conflict with the rationalisation of continuous failure. This paradox thus becomes the driving motto of all his decisions. From the start, he understands that he will only have a momentary pleasure and not a lasting one through thieving, which in the end will be the ruin of everyone around him. But can he be faulted for trying? Ultimately, he is the only one that tries hard to find a correct balance between social behaviour and personal will. He does become the sane one in a mad world.

By playing the card of rejection of values rather their acceptance, Anderson signals the unique human trait of living through constant failure. The fact that he reaches this daunting conclusion using comedy is to his credit. Returning to the reason why this specific film was chosen as the opening film for the festival, then, it seems fair to point out its relevance this year. The credit crunch was triggered by a simple desire to live a better life from all parties involved. The sub-prime homeowner got a house, the bankers had more money. All parties involved entered into various contracts through both need and desire. When the bubble burst, everyone had to suffer. As in the film, the farmers had no stock left and the homeowners found themselves on the street. What was particular about this year was that in spite of the circumstances, people stilled moved on. Eventually, even the shabby flats ‘down’-town can become a profitable business when all else fails.

Anderson portrayed this mood, through showing how we can pick ourselves up and start all over again (incidentally sounding like a 1930s Fred Astaire song!) . You cannot fault Sandra Hebron, the London Film Festival Artistic Director, for choosing Fantastic Mr. Fox to set the stage for what looks like an exciting festival.