Blog Assignment #2: Plato's Cave or the Trick's On Us?
Before class today, I thought Midnight in Paris was merely a film that celebrated fantasy and longed for a return to a "Golden Age". After today's lecture I've come to realize that Allen had much more interesting intentions. The film really is a criticism of the Institutional Mode of Response of Hollywood, by creating a film that fit perfectly into it.
In my screening notes I argued that Owen Wilson was cast as a typical stupid but lovable character that the audience was supposed to sympathize with while watching him lose and subsequently find love. Much of it felt nostalgic and fantastic. I was captivated by the representations of Dali, Hemingway, Picasso, and Stein. It was like a literary Disney Land.
Then after lecture I remembered my first Woody Allen screening, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion. I actually watched it at the theater so I must have been around eight or nine years old. I hardly remember the plot, but I did think it was just a "weird" movie, although there were pretty big actors in the film (Dan Aykroyd, Charlize Theron). Most of the audience seemed to agree. There were boos and complaints throughout the credits. The film itself and the reactions received were very unlike the film I had just seen this past week.
In comparison, neither me or my eight year old self would call Midnight in Paris weird at all. After having learned about his stylistic tendencies, the movie was almost too "normal". The cast is relatively famous (Wilson, McAdams, Bates, Brody, even Bruni in her own right). Continuity editing is very well utilized and IMR is heavily followed. Many critics seem to agree, as the film is being nominated for the Academy Awards, SAG, etc. Many of these institutions appreciate the classic cinematic "allure" of cinema, awarding films such as The King's Speech, Titanic, and Rocky. These films sparked human desires more than they embraced the unique techniques of cinema.
I feel that Allen decided to follow these Hollywood conventions with the intent of sewing the deeper elements of his previous films in a more subtle way. He wanted most viewers to see the love story and fantasy and disregard real world implications. Even though the setting is Paris, the film fails to place itself in the real world. The reality is, a character like Gil would never even fall in love with a character like Inez. She stands for everything he hates. The clash between them is even worse than that of Paul and Madeline in Masculin Féminin. The women around Gil really only act to advance the plot of the film and to satisfy the Academy and those who wanted a Romantic Comedy.
The film's real gem is its critique on classic Hollywood fantasy. Allen purposefully cast Wilson, whose laid back "West Coast" style would better disregard the deeper moments in the film than an "East Coast" intellectual. It allows for many of Allen's key arguments to fly right over the heads of the general audience. I feel that much of the dialogue in the past is also just "fluff" to satisfy a general audience. The characters of Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Stein play too perfectly into Gil's ideals of them to be realistic. There is no conflict between them as I'd imagine there should be.
The most important scene in the film is where Gil converses with Salvador Dali, Man Ray, and Luis Buñuel, the surrealists of the period. I feel that these are the artists Allen would identify best with of the period after having watched some of his other films. This is the first group to which Gil confesses the truth of his time travels into the 1920's. Interestingly enough, Man Ray reacts without surprise to which Gil replies "But you're a surrealist, I'm just a regular guy!" This is as blatant as Allen can get without ruining the facade of Romantic Comedy. Films from those like Allen and Godard are too "abstract" to get any attention from the mainstream, but we watch bland Romantic Comedies and Summer Action Flicks without complaint.
Allen really did play a great trick on my. The use of fantasy, famous actors, and the promise of love clouded my analysis of the film overall. Deeply sewn into the film is a critique of the same elements its audience has come to love.
Really perseptive Kiran. But then, did Allen play a trick on you, or, did you, as a member of his loyal audience, not enjoy this fantasy just as Allen intended you to?
ReplyDeleteThanks
Kiran- I think this is an accurate and concise summary of what we heard in class. This being the case, I disagree with what we talked about in class. We talked about how Midnight in Paris is unlike any other Woody Allen film, but what about Vick Christina Barcelona? Its a Woody Allen film and it shares many aspects of Midnight in Paris, so the argument that this is a wild departure from his other films doesn't really hold water. Maybe he is just softening in his old age and creating friendlier, more accessible films.
ReplyDeleteAnother argument made was that Gil was just an affable loser. He is branded this way because of his seemingly poor quality of writing. This is not the case though. Yes he calls himself a "hollywood hack", but self awareness is one of the highest marks of intelligence. This is also a character who has his novel read, and more importnantly enjoyed, by Ernest Hemingway and Gertrude Stein. Maybe he isn't so self aware when it comes to his cheating fiance, but who hasn't looked at a loved with through rose colored glasses?