Why, O Why, Don't I Love "Paris"?
Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 3:20PM Hallo folks! Ester here. You might remember me from such previous forays into Film Experience as my "Reader Spotlight" and my Two Stars, One Slot tribute piece, "Waif vs. Waif: Mia Wasikowska vs. Saoirse Ronan." Today I come to you with a feminist chip on my shoulder and a spark of rage in my eye, and my target is Woody Allen -- specifically his tepid time-travel fantasy, Midnight in Paris.
It's not surprising that Hollywood, the quintessential vehicle of nostalgia, is obsessed with landmarks. Jack Nicholson has only to get up in the morning and put his shoes on the right feet four shooting days out of five to get nominated for an Oscar, because Hollywood is just so gosh darn grateful an old-school movie star like him is still gracing films with his presence. Similarly, Woody Allen has only to make a movie that is not truly godawful terrible to make every film critic in the US sigh happily about how the maestro has done it again.
Even then, by the way, he still makes several insufferable stabs at cinema for every Vicky Cristina Barcelona (or Scoop, which I actually kind of enjoyed).
I understand the impulse to make ourselves hoarse praising the man. After all, we're talking about Woody Allen, auteur extraordinaire, Oscar-winner, redefiner of comedy, granddaddy to a thousand less-talented copy-cat narcissists. He's so prolific he probably doesn't even remember making one of my favorites of his films, the wistful and imaginative Purple Rose of Cairo. (Such small, delightful movies are often called "gems," which confuses me as gems come in all sizes; in fact, a woman I know recently received one that may weigh more than she does. But that's neither here nor there.)
Friends, a mediocrity is a mediocrity, whether it comes from Shakespeare or Dan Brown. Why do we insist on grading Woody Allen on a curve?
Having heard good things about Midnight in Paris, like all cinephiles I trooped dutifully to the multiplex with a friend in tow. I was excited! This seemed more my speed than his other recent efforts, since I love the Roaring 20's and had, at the time, just read two books of Hemingway's. The trailers ended; the chatter died down; the lights dimmed -- and soon enough, so did my mood.
Here's what I liked about the film:
- Rachel McAdams as Inez. Long an MVP of supporting roles in smart comedies like Mean Girls, she deserves to headline a flick alongside Owen Wilson. Though the film doesn't give her much to work with, her charm makes a stereotypically dreadful, shrewish role seem that much more bearable.
- Cinematography. Rarely has even the City of Lights looked this luscious.
- The conceit. Great idea! Magic realism isn't used enough in cinema, and there's so much potential in the idea of a contemporary writer heading back in time to seek advice from the greats.
- The Fitzgeralds & Picasso. Though not given much to do and played for laughs, Alison Pill as Zelda especially feels truly thought-through, full of depth and energy and sadness. Many of the other famous folks are just walking one-liners.
Here's what didn't work for me: [SPOILER ALERT!]
- Everything else. Starting with the main character, played by a sunny, fit Owen Wilson as yet another in a long line of actors who have to portray Woody Allen now that he's aged out of playing himself. Owen Wilson works as the hack screenwriter he's intended to be, but not for a moment did I buy him as a neurotic hypochondriac, let alone a truly talented author.
- And he is supposed to be talented! Why else would Gertrude Stein, Hemingway, and Fitzgerald bother to give him the time of day -- midnight, FYI -- let alone encourage his aspirations?
- The love story. Okay, fine, his fiancee Inez is supposed to be a vacuous Republican who doesn't appreciate the arts. That doesn't give him the right to pursue another woman, even one as lovely as Marion Cotillard. Oops, my anti-cheating slip is showing. I hate movies were one partner feels entitled to cheat on another partner. True love is no excuse for shitty behavior. Just break off your current relationship and THEN go in search of your soulmate! Is it that hard? (I'm looking at you, Serendipity.) This leads me directly to another point:
- The amorality. Not only does Owen Wilson's character feel entitled to cheat on his fiancee -- why? because he's an artist? because he can? -- he also attempts to steal her earrings to give to his would-be mistress. This was the point at which my indignation meter went off the charts. Yes, Woody Allen's movies are often dark; they portray the selfish, seamy, often criminal side of human nature. But Midnight in Paris is not a serious drama like Match Point or Crimes and Misdemeanors. Owen Wilson's perfidy is played for laughs. It's not clear to me that Woody Allen thinks his stand-in is doing anything wrong.
Overall, I just couldn't buy it. Not the time travel fantasy aspect of the film, but virtually everything else, down to the costumes. Rarely do I notice wardrobe in a movie except to admire it; Inez, however, wears a variation on the same outfit in every scene! What is this, "the Simpsons"? Let the woman change her clothes! Most importantly, I didn't buy Owen Wilson as a real person, let alone a real author, and that to me speaks of deep laziness on the part of the script.
Stay turned for a list of the Most and Least Believable Portrayals of Writers in Film! Coming soon.
Reader Comments (45)
Edit this fast. Rachel McAdams.
maybe elizabeth banks was portrayed by rachel mcadams, maybe.
Forgive! I love both women and sometimes get them confused. (In fact, I keep meaning to do a Two Stars, One Slot for the two of them.) Anyway, the change has been registered.
No worries! Although I thought her character was one of the biggest problems in the film regardless. Frankly, other than Alison Pill, I thought it was odd how little any of the other women had to do that was remotely funny. Mimi Kennedy, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Lea Seydoux, Nina Arianda ... not a joke for any. Lea Seydoux's character barely existed.
I think it was Joe Reid who tweeted recently that Midnight in Paris is a B- movie that looks more and more like a C the more praise it gets.
Yes, yes, YES! God this was a mediocre movie and some people are having the temerity to add it to possible Best Picture nominees!!!! Argh! Gasp! Choke! Vomit!
I agree with much of what you say but I didn't mind the cheating. Ending a marriage and then going off to find your soulmate isn't even halfway plausible. Really. Besides how would they ever figure out they wanted to stay with the first one that way!
But other than that - yeah - Owen as a brilliant writer who Gertrude Stein would admire - oh please!!! Even Woody himself in that role would break believability. And, by the way, I thought Bates was terrible in that role. I did like the Fitzgeralds and the Hemingway but not Stein.
Paris did look pretty though, didn't it? And so did Ms. Cotillard
I don't think it's fair to get mad at the screenwriter for having the protagonist do something dark at the point of the story when he's bottoming out. I also don't think it's fair to impute the character's behavior to the writer and say that Owen thought it was okay so Woody thought it was okay. And I'm not even sure Owen thought it was ok -- he didn't even go through with it!
I think it's pretty clear that Owen attempts to cheat because the woman he's with represents his vapid Hollywood creative life, which he wants to slough off, and Cotillard represents his 1920's Paris creative life, which he wants to attain. If anything, the critique should be that the female characters are more symbols than people.
Overall, as chauvinistic male darkness goes, this whole story rates: meh.
1. Not to mention Inez was cheating on Gil with that awful Paul way before Gil was going at it with Cotillard . . . and we're judging a movie's quality based on someone's personal morality? There are tons of movies I'd hate if that were the case (Les Liaisons Dangereuses? L'Avventura? Pink Flamingos?)
2. I thought the film was unsparing on Gil, who was so over the top with his nostalgia and romanticized idea ofParis that he truly needed to come to grips and see Inez was totally wrong for him (and I surmise that his writing would get better once he lets go of his idea of A Golden Age).
3. As for the comment that said the women had no jokes . . . I am not sure. Inez's mother had some zingers as did Nina Arianda (her correction of the pronunciation of Sorbonne was hysterical) and I thought Kathy Bates was delightful.
This movie moved me a great deal. I found Cotillard to be absolutely ravishing in it (she's truly from the old school of movie stars. She was also ravishing in Inception, a film it was hard to be ravishing in . . . unless you're Tom Hardy). I have enjoyed many a Woody Allen film in the past, but have pretty much given up on him at this point, so I was pleasantly surprised with this one.
/2 cents
Great essay, Ester! Though I don't know that you can discount a movie (esp a comedy, which is all about breaking taboos) for its stance on infidelity. If so, entire genres would be wiped out - namely, Screwball and Sex Comedies. Where would a movie like "Trouble in Paradise" be without a little outside-the-relationship sexual tension?
Thank GOD. I thought it was just me...
Am I about to say this? Yes. I haven't seen many Woody Allen films. I went into Midnight in Paris knowing that it got some good reviews. I did not read them. I was just aware of them. I was immediately drawn into the world by the opening montage of short scenes changing to the beat of so-so-French music. It was one of the cleanest and most engaging uses of music I've seen in a long time. Then, when the film started with the time traveling stuff, I was hooked. The smile did not leave my face until long after the film was over.
I didn't grade the film on a curve because (so help me) I really don't care about Woody Allen one way or the other. He's a great writer. He's had a long career. He broke poor Mia Farrow's heart. I think here he managed to make a beautifully realized fantasy film for a specific kind of audience. It's as fluffy as The Prizewinner of Defiance, Ohio, only it adds in depth with all the references to Modernism and other forms of Interwar Avant Garde. I have no doubt this will be in my top 5 of the year.
You have some legit complaints with the movie (which I thought was good, not great), but noting Allison Pill as a strong point? Eww.
My beef with the film: a bunch of writers from the 1920s read a novel written in 2010 and they don't have any questions for Owen Wilson about why his work includes unfamiliar items (which wouldn't have been invented in 1920) or really strange diction?... c'mon!
Fair point, Evan! Why aren't they more curious about where Owen Wilson's character came from and what the future is like? Just because he's nostalgic, does everyone else have to be? Isn't anyone interested in the unknown?
KA -- I don't see Gil as bottoming out at all. In fact, everything goes really well for him: he finds a better girl (two better girls, in fact, the second of whom is, what, 16?), he gets good advice on his "novel", he figures out that he needs to get free of Inez and stay in Paris. Also, the only reason he doesn't go through with the theft is that he gets interrupted in the middle of it.
Infidelity in movies doesn't always bother me, especially if it's handled well, like in "Scott Pilgrim Versus the World," just to name one recent example, and sexual tension always gets a thumbs up from me. But I stand by my general point: "True love" is not an excuse for shitty behavior. Gil's behavior is selfish & irritating, and yet he is supposed to be a likable character. That's what didn't work for me.
The whole point about the character's immorality is ludicrous. I don't go to the movies to learn life lessons or to have them set my values straight. If you think this of Owen's character do you think less of "Citizen Kane", "Gone With the Wind" and "Casablanca" because the characters in it cheat, lie and steal to have their way? If the case is genre, as you mention that only dramas should have amoral characters, does this mean that "The Sting" is a bad movie?
This piece makes it sound like you have more problems with the movie going against your own personal values than for any actual artistic flaws.
Totally with Jose on this one. He summed up most of what was on my mind. (That, and the fact that I found Marion Cotillard absolutely brilliant and everything you thought Allison Pill, whose charm I found totally miscalculated, was – luminous, funny, sad, charismatic.)
I love Woody Allen. Midnight in Paris is a pair of denim jeans. Comfortable, not demanding anything, but a sense of tried and true, adult audiences all over America can appreicate this. For those who don't get the fuss over Midnight in Paris don't worry the next Woody film you're bound to love won't have half Midnight's audience the next go around.
I hope he attempts a drama again. I love Interiors and can't wait to see Another Woman.
Ester, love the review. It took me some time before I completely fell for Allen's work in general, but now I'm 100% on board. He is one of the great directors of our time, and I hope he kicks out film after film until the day he's gone. Even so, nobody gets a free pass. Midnight in Paris is not a bad film, but it unfortunately isn't one that clicked with me.
One distracting point you highlight is the script's effort to make Inez into a villain. I was actually surprised most people bought it. Yes, she is annoyed by Gil's self-absorption and yes, she fits a lot of Republican stereotypes. So she's an awful person that deserves to be cheated on? Her final scene was godawful and I'm glad you highlighted her acting, because she really does the best she can with a script that hates her so much.
Now I can see why the whimsy of the story would sweep people up. Obviously this worked for a lot of people, so it's nice to know I wasn't the only one who missed out. Still, I don't mind the film getting so much positive attention when it was trying to do something different. The Allen replica of Wilson kept me from investing - I feel like others in the same shoes, like Cusack in "Bullets Over Broadway," have managed to do more than just copy him - but anyone who loves Allen has to be a little use to this character.
I also find it really funny that it seems like Allen fans are either Team Midnight in Paris or Team Vicky Cristina Barcelona. I'm sure there's an overlap, but as a huge VCB fan, I was more annoyed by the comments that this is "the best Allen film in a decade." Not for my money. That movie, to me, was Allen's return to form.
Judging this movie, or any other based on how it corresponds with your moral compass is as ridiculous as saying Kanye West's music sucks because he's an arrogant prick.
Criticism of any medium should be based on it's artistic merits, bias should be kept out of an argument that should be based on merit.
I actually watched all of Next Three Days with Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks, thinking it was Rachel McAdams. Then a few weeks later I watched a real Crowe/McAdams movie, State of Play. Makes me still wish Next Three Days was with McAdams.
Midnight In Paris is like a comfy pair of your favorite jeans. I'm just trying to figure out if some are calling Midnight "Woody Lite", what does that make Scoop?
I've ranted enough about MIP, so I won't anymore, but THANK YOU! for this one detracting piece. I adore the Paris expats and the 20's and this movie left me fuming.
"Yes, Woody Allen's movies are often dark; they portray the selfish, seamy, often criminal side of human nature. But Midnight in Paris is not a serious drama like Match Point or Crimes and Misdemeanors. Owen Wilson's perfidy is played for laughs. It's not clear to me that Woody Allen thinks his stand-in is doing anything wrong."
Bear in mind that Woody Allen had an affair with Soon-Yee Previn while technically still dating her adopted mother, Mia Farrow. I'd say that Allen has a fast and loose moral compass, and his ability to detect right from wrong is probably not the same as that of the average joe.
I don't wanna speak for Ester, but I just don't think the problem is that she's trying to use her moral compass to judge the movie. It's perfectly okay for characters to be unmoral in a piece of fiction, and honestly I usually like more when they are at least a tiny bit on the wrong side. We all love movies, and books and TV shows filled with people that do things we wouldn't want to do in our lives, including adultery, it's just a bit annoying when said things are covered with a blanket of self-righteousness. Why does the movie feel the need to justify the guy’s behavior and make it okay? He’s wife is a bitch, he’s depressed, he needs a different life, bla bla bla. I just think sometimes a character can seem complex, and sometimes it just seems like he’s entitled. It didn’t rub me the wrong way so strongly this time (maybe because I actually liked Owen?), but I do find annoying when a script, and then the spectators, find it necessary to pat a character on the back for a mistake, as if he was entitled to make it?
Yeah, I didn't like it as much as everyone else did neither. I've been repeating myself in saying that it's like watching Coles Notes for 90 minutes. It has a lack of imagination, and Woody's affected dialogue hurts him in this movie.
I do think that Owen Wilson and NIna Ariadna (who plays Carol, Martin Shee's character's girlfriend) were the one of the strongest, most hilarious links in that movie and Alison Pill the weakest. McAdams's Inez is like Regina George in her 20's/30's, and I can't necessarily hate that. But why would she marry a writer if she hated the arts? And why is everyone else on autopilot?
I couldn't disagree with your review more.
Well let's just say that compared with the other fare that can be found at the movie theaters these days, Midnight is a masterpiece. Funny, warm, intelligent , beautiful, well acted. We should be grateful that Woody Allen exists and is back every year with a new opus even if he knows that whatever he does is compared with his old great stuff. Let's enjoy it while it lasts instead of trying to nitpick something that wasn't even intended to be anything other than counter-programming in a summer full of green superhuman vampire wizards.
That doesn't mean, of course , we can't discuss it. But I'd like to see a little perspective here.
I'm sorry Ester, but this is a ridiculous review. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is completely invalid. Please don't bring your moral beliefs into a review.
Please. I'd expected to hear the kind of arguments you make to disagree with a movie from a right-wing high-schooler, never here. Granted, Midnight in Paris is not perfect and has its flaws. But to conclude with: "Most importantly, I didn't buy Owen Wilson as a real person, let alone a real author, and that to me speaks of deep laziness on the part of the script.", allows me the conclusion that the lazy writing was somewhere else—in your post.
Consider, though, that there's nothing wrong with not liking the movie because of its moral message. Anybody its entitled to their opinions, sensitivities and own personal principles. However, to analyze and judge the value of a film based on the kind of morality it portrays is a blunder that leads people to overlook the structural elements that actually give or take away merit to any given film.
The writing wasn't strong at all, though, nor were the characters. It felt like a film student's first foray into screenwriting. What, an opening montage of Parisian landmarks? Groundbreaking. Inane sappy dialogue that I can't recall at all? Commendable. I'd say that it was one of of his worst efforts. I'm sorry, but I think that any other half-assed director or writer could have made this.
The film had several flaws, I'll grant you that. Yet, to me, the way Woody structured the plot and dialogue kept me enchanted so thoroughly, I rarely cared. I doubt it will end up making my top ten list at the end of the year, but the possibility is there. It reminded me really of another flawed, but greatly enjoyable nostalgic entry, Miss Pettigrew Lives For a Day. Since few movies attempt this sort of feel, and even fewer find success, I'm going to celebrate them when I can. What strikes me as odd is the way this light truffle has attracted so much undeserved vitriol. If MIP was a 10 mil earner, my guess is this would be nonexistent. I guess success really does breed hate.
this movie is all about his famous cameos,french clichés(Louvres,Marion Cotillard,Palaces,good food,good wines) and nostalgia (and Rachel mc adams'ass):it's not unpleasable but it's very limited for me
For you to, first of all, praise Rachel McAdams in this role is the largest beef I have with the review. This performance may be, for me, the worst I see all year. Not only because it doesn't live up to the strong work of the entire ensemble surrounding her, but worse, it casts such a negative light on McAdams' talent that it makes you wonder what it was about her you liked in the first place. Actresses (and actors) have had such roles that, admittedly, SUCK on the page, but made something about them endearing on the screen. This was a performance with no empathy, no humanity, all surface and judgement. I haven't hated a performance in a film this much in a long while.
To say that, aside from Pill's LOVELY work, the rest of the female ensemble doesn't have moments to shine comedically is preposterous. I loved Bates' no-BS take on Stein, Kennedy's subtle jabs at Wilson, and I fucking ADORED Arianda here. Watch the way this woman lives in her scenes, just the way she interacts with the others, and not only does she blow McAdams out of the water, but Wilson and Sheen as well.
And your amorality stance is bullshit. Did you FORGET that McAdams and Sheen sleep together? Juxtapose their relationship with that of Wilson and Cotillard's, where the former's is all about lust and possession, the latter is about discovery and empathy. Life gets messy, love. Don't immediately throw poisoned barbs at the Allen-stand-in when the woman in the relationship is just as bad, if not more so; it reeks of stale feminism.
I'm actually kind of shocked that Nathaniel let this review on the website. It's the kind of trite, preposterous, incendiary writing reserved for the likes of Armond White. You're entitled to your view though, however skewered and blind it may be.
Beau -- I asked Ester to cover this because I knew she didn't like the film and since I like it (but found it a bit too limited for straight up "love" -- mostly due to the handling of the Inez and her family) and most of my podcast guests that week also really enjoyed it -- i thought it would be fun to discuss a different perspective.
Drew -- that's always been the case. Success has a way of throwing opinions (good, bad, other) into very sharp relief. I personally believe that's why so many web reviews of huge acclaimed hits where the person saw the movie way after the fact always take such a "blech, what were people so excited about?" tone. It's human nature but we all end up reviewing the reactions to a piece of art while we're reviewing the art. IF we come to it late. (Not that Ester really came to this one late because I talked to her about it months ago by e-mail. I'm just speaking generally)
Adelutza --but we have had other perspectives here! Most Midnight posts have been very positive (though I guess I should have given it a full on review instead of just the podcast)
City of Lights -- "Woody Zero"??? ;)
A different perspective is one thing. A poorly written, poorly executed review is another.
I'm not saying Ester isn't entitled to her opinion, it's just one whose bias blinds it from the bigger picture. I'm not a Woody Allen apologist by any means, (I loathed 'Dark Stranger') but there's something to be said when a revered filmmaker tackles new thematic material so joyously and gives us such a splendid, well-realized universe that I couldn't help but grin throughout the entire film. Be it because of Hemingway's dry, dark humor, Dali's absurdist energy, Cotillard's stunning entrance, the way Arianda tried to speak everything French with an accent, Bunuel not getting the plot of 'The Exterminating Angel', Zelda aspiring to live higher, and Wilson playing the straight man to it all PERFECTLY, I got wrapped up in the magic here. You don't feel like this after every film.
Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
This is Woody's best film in years! There is so much to LOVE about it! As some others have observed, I think the objections to the characters actions on moral grounds is unfair... I think the fact that Woody offers some flawed characters makes the film more complex. I'm glad you point out the magical realism, but the love story is partly what makes this element of the film so 'magical'. (Remember that great scene where Gil finds the book in the present?) And there are plenty of performances stronger than Rachel McAdams. Wilson does an excellent job as the Woody surrogate and Corey Stroll steals the show as Hemingway! All the other fun cameos as Bunuel, Dali, etc do an excellent job of injecting Woody's appreciation for the time period in such an insightful way. How can you dislike the nostalgia here?
I say give Midnight in Paris a nomination for Best Picture! (If not a win!)
Beau -- Dude! Look at you! Bursting with thousand word comments about other people's blog posts! Get a blog -- it's FREE! Astound us, if you dare, with a full-throated, if one-sided, exposition, or polemic, or essay, if you wish, of course, wherein you can explore, beyond the fetters of the cellar, nay, the dungeon, of the comments section, your apparently pathological pre-occupation, with, writing, using, too, many, COMMAS!
"If anything, the critique should be that the female characters are more symbols than people."
An excellent point, KA, and one not to be overlooked. The "woman as mere object/symbol" motif is as old as the movies - and, to me, as tiresome.
"compared with the other fare that can be found at the movie theaters these days, Midnight is a masterpiece".
Given what's at the cinema nowadays, adelutza, that is certainly a very low bar, and seems rather faint praise.
In terms of "grading on the curve" I am still trying to wash the nasty taste of "Picking up the Pieces" out of my mouth (and my memory. It's the one where Allen plays a butcher who murders and dismembers his wife Sharon Stone, for no reason that I can recall except that he doesn't like her.) I admit I enjoyed Anne Hall and loved Purple Rose of Cairo, so I hope I can come at this relatively objectively (I neither fully worship nor fully hate the man.)
I enjoyed reading the essay, and I appreciate Nathaniel having a female "guest". I don't feel obliged to agree with her based on gender, but can certainly appreciate her comments and what I found to be an interesting and well-written opinion-piece. As a daily reader of this blog I aware that men far outnumber women (not through any intentional sexism),so the gesture is appreciated. I suspect that tone of comments here probably ensure that women will continue to stay away. It's interesting that the opinions here are divided primarily -but NOT exclusively - along gender lines. It reminds me of a smaller version of the fracas surrounding "Thelma and Louise" on it's release. Are we still so fractured and divided along gender lines?
Who we are, what we are, education, our experiences as a whole, inform how we react to films; it cannot be helped. Any of us can admire a film or a filmmaker without feeling great love for a film. Our reactions are our reactions. It must be admitted that relatively few filmmakers - at least in the US - are primarily about an "intellectual reaction"; that film as a whole (in North America) is about emotional responses; and that furthermore that response can change or evolve over time.
I can't remember the last time, if ever, that a single post brought out so much general unpleasantness from commenters. I appreciated Esther's "owning" her opinion: "I felt...I couldn't believe...this did (or did not do this for me)" Rather than the sort of reviews one reads from professionals that supposedly take an "objective" stance: "This IS a great/horrible movie" (but, to whom?)
A blog like this is about expressing opinions, to which we are each entitled (Nat has never lacked for them, nor has any other guest - Cate Blanchett, anyone?) Certainly it's fascinating that a strongly-worded, passionate essay has elicted so many equally passionate responses; none of which are displaying the "analysis" or "objectivity" for which Ester screamed at for lacking. And which, again, she does not pretend; to quote the essay: "Here's what didn't work for ME."
I was not crazy about Midnight in Paris either, but I have to agree with our man Beau on this one. The 'moral compass' argument is no different than saying you didnt like the film because you don't like Cole Porter. It's fine if you don't like Cole Porter, but if you are writing a REVIEW then you have to be a little more objective. Allen gives us explanation for the use of Cole Porter music in the film, just as he gives us explanation for Gil's 'immoral' behavior. if that is the reason you don't like the movie, that's fine. But to make the immorality claim in a review/ essay IS in fact bullshit. I do agree with you on the subject of owen wilson's character though. He was charming but I didnt really buy him as a talented writer either.
I'll get right on that, KA.
Enjoy the commas.
Janice: To each his own, I guess...
Yet, I think you're extrapolating things a bit with the gender lines. I feel the reaction to Ester's essay (which I found to be very ill-structured and somewhat incoherent) has to do more with her self-righteous approach to film analysis.
She's probably a nice woman and carries herself with dignity in all occasions. She does, however, offers an opinion about the movie: "tepid time-travel fantasy". And I wanted to know why she found it tepid? She never really explains that. Though she talks about how her "indignation meter went off the charts" because of the narrative of Owen Wilson's character. Then, in an erratic final paragraph, she jumps here and there about other silly annoyances and, out of the blue, offers a grandiose conclusion about the script. The script. Now, if she probably hadn't mentioned that word, I probably would've passed her post as an inane yet respectable mélange of opinions about Midnight. But she had to express her arrogant pseudo-informed opinion about the script, when there is nothing in her "essay" that would give respectability to that conclusion. She didn't offer any arguments to back up that final note. And that, Janice, is a no, no in opinion pieces. For me, it invalidates the whole thing.
I didn't dislike nor loved Midnight. I found it to be mildly entertaining, if else whimsical and shallow. Most characters were capricious fillers, unidimensional, but I don't think they needed to be otherwise. This was good light fluff, and didn't think much of it to be honest. I probably could've missed it in the theatres but, as Ester, I was allured by the buzz.
"I can't remember the last time, if ever, that a single post brought out so much general unpleasantness from commenters."
I agree Janice, the negativity in many of these responses is astounding.
Nat: So true. It's clearly unavoidable, but judging art based on others' reactions continues to be a pet peeve of mine. I always feel the urge to slap someone when they start throwing around the "overrated" term (I resist), even when I technically kind of agree with the assessment. I guess what really bothers me about it is the sense of superiority (especially on the internet) that people seem to grant themselves just cause they can see all the "flaws" in a popular movie that others can't. That being said, I don't hate this review. Ester keeps it mostly about the movie itself and neatly explains her problems with the film, even if I don't happen to agree.
As soon as I heard the plot of MIP, it made me think that Allen was going back to one of his short pieces that he wrote about 40 years ago (in "Without Feathers"?) that was a 1920s Paris satire about Hemingway and his crowd. So I kind of saw it as Allen going back to when he was just trying to entertain and be funny. And MIP did entertain me. I loved all the 1920s cameos.
But the contemporary characters seem to be more those stock Allen characters that have become increasingly problematic (at least to me). The venomous shrew trapping a man in marriage, and the entitled self-absorbed Woody stand-in. I was surprised that McAdams was less shrewish than I thought she'd be. Both she and Wilson bring some alleviating factors to their roles. Wilson has a sweetness and vulnerability (lacking in the Woody character). I loved his Charleston with Djuna Barnes - Wilson gave himself over to reveling in such innocent fun.
So it's more interesting to watch the actor's approach to adding life to unrewarding stock characters. And Allen has always been absolutely terrific at casting - his best skill. The characters themselves are just unsuited to each other in a relationship and I don't care about them.
And I agree that the stealing of the the earrings was a particularly sour touch. It shows again the the protagonist has no respect for either woman. Adrianna doesn't deserve to have the best and most beautiful earrings bought particularly for her, and the carelessness about Inez - it keeps bringing us back to the sourness of the Woody character that we're trying to forget.
I did find the film to be an entertaining summer movie, and I knew it was Woody Allen going in, so I knew what shortcomings to expect. I liked this article because it talked about things that I also thought. And I too am a little surprised at the tone of some of the responses here.
Most immature review I have seen among decades of Allen-haters. To fail to appeciate the depth and range of usually spot-on allusions, to screed on cliches like the Louvre (The Louvre, not even featured in the flick, a cliche?), to ignore the lyrical cinematographic homage to the city, to revel in Pill's moronic, physically miscast Zelda without mention of Kennedy's, Bates's or Sheen's sharp characterizations and to gainsay the full array of sharp female lines, to miss the many erudite refs such as Bricktops, Djuna Barnes, Brasserie Lipp, Rodin's loves, Eliot's teaspoons, Bunuel's Angel Exterminador, and the misplaced Huck Finn quote - all truly belie a truly unread truly sexist reviewer. To miss how well Stoll did his homework, avoiding the usual NY/Hollywood cliche of portraying jealously cheap Hemingway caricatures, to fail to mention the score, the ignore recurrent structural rhythms in the film's composition - all are so well beyond the reviewer's poor capacity,I have already used far too much time on her. Thank God others have called her on such cheap, archaic sexism and moral posturing.
Most immature review I have seen among decades of Allen-haters. To fail to appeciate the depth and range of usually spot-on allusions, to screed on cliches like the Louvre (The Louvre, not even featured in the flick, a cliche?), to ignore the lyrical cinematographic homage to the city, to revel in Pill's moronic, physically miscast Zelda without mention of Kennedy's, Bates's or Sheen's sharp characterizations and to gainsay the full array of sharp female lines, to miss the many erudite refs such as Bricktops, Djuna Barnes, Brasserie Lipp, Rodin's loves, Eliot's teaspoons, Bunuel's Angel Exterminador, and the misplaced Huck Finn quote - all truly belie a truly unread truly sexist reviewer. To miss how well Stoll did his homework, avoiding the usual NY/Hollywood cliche of portraying jealously cheap Hemingway caricatures, to fail to mention the score, to ignore the recurrent structural rhythms in the film's composition - all are so well beyond the reviewer's poor capacity,I have already used far too much time on her. And thank God so many others have called her on such cheap, archaic sexism and tedious moral posturing.
I'm so sorry for Ester Bloom!
Honestly, if she dislikes a movie because the lead character cheats, I really don't want to know what she thinks of Lolita, Law of Desire, Talk to Her or Brokeback Mountain!
wow-- someone sure is uptight sexually.