Midnight in Paris

[ButteMT61]

Agreed. I think Owen Wilson is a somewhat one-note actor, but it's the perfect note for this role. He comes off as goofy and sincere, very likable. So I'd say his limits as an actor actually serve him in this situation, because he's playing the Owen Wilson character rather than trying to play the Woody Allen character which brings a refreshing turn to the Woody Allen character. Juliet Taylor has been Woody's casting director for 30 years (actually, she's everybody's casting director) and she nailed it here.

I also think it's been refreshing for Woody to get out of New York.

Agree on all counts. We loved this movie, and Wilson is the right amount of naive, dopey, and child-like to pull it off perfectly.
The supporting cast was amazing. I don't like Woody Allen (mainly for his personal transgressions) but this movie was wonderful in so many ways. We will see it again, and likely will buy the DVD. I rarely say that, but it was than fun and wonderfully set in Paris. The time-machine aspect was likewise wonderful. I'm not surprised at all by it's success.

OTOH, if you want to see another "French" movie, "Porcupine" is quite wonderful, but totally different. Highly recommended...

 

[Doctor Strange]

I finally saw it and was underwhelmed. A charming trifle. Some excellent moments, but it's a lazy mess of a film.

 

[Nathan Dodge]

I finally saw it and was underwhelmed. A charming trifle. Some excellent moments, but it's a lazy mess of a film.

Your criticisms of a filmmaker you claim to like are so...Allenesque. Reminds me of a quote that's usually attributed to Groucho Marx, but I think it appears originally in Freud's Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious, and it goes like this - I'm paraphrasing - um, "I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member."

 

[Doctor Strange]

You want a detailed breakdown?

I thought the 1920s and 1890s stuff was great. The present stuff was terrible. Thus, I felt it only half worked.

There were no characters in the film, just one-dimensional caricatures. This worked out just fine for the historical characters, but not so much for Inez, her parents, and Paul. Allen has given us plenty of shallow women, rich conservatives, and pretentious blowhards in earlier films... but he typically made the effort to make them more shaded, complex characters, not stick-figure bad guys. I understand that he was going for a simpler, schematic past/good, present/bad feel in this story... but I never believed that Gil and Inez had *ever* been a good match. (It's hard to get as likable an actress as Rachel McAdams to come off as such a worthless, spoiled shrew, so I guess Allen's direction was okay, at least.)

And while I did find Owen Wilson to be one of the better Allen-character stand-ins, Gil was pretty inconsistent: he failed freshman English and writes trashy scripts... but has a veneration and knowledge of the Lost Generation that shows major study. Like all of Allen's viewpoint characters, his thinking reflects Allen's grew-up-in-forties perspective, not a man of his actual generation. Allen doesn't even try to disguise this anymore, which I consider an example of how sloppy his writing is these days.

And it had one of the biggest problems of Allen's late films - a sudden, too-rushed ending, with the dues-ex-machina arrival of the seemingly perfect girl for Gil, a character so barely sketched in during her earlier appearances that she feels like an afterthought. The pacing was way off: even though Gil had learned his lesson, and the story's dramatic freight was technically complete, the breakup scene and reintroduction of Gabrielle seemed underwritten and too quick. The film needed another ten minutes to play out, but it just kind of stopped.

Look, I'm a major fan - I saw my first Woody movies back in about 1971, and have been blown away by both his major and minor films ever since. I have liked some recent ones that many folks haven't (Scoop, Cassandra's Dream, Whatever Works), but I'm not blind to the fact that he's now in his mannerist period. The same plots, characters, devices, concerns, and tropes are being recycled in new guises... but in a more scattershot, less carefully thought-out way than a decade or two ago. All of which is fine: the man has made a picture a year for forty-plus years, many of them masterpieces, and just a couple of them outright stinkers. I am in awe of Woody's talent, and think his prolific body of work will amaze - and be a goldmine to - future cultural historians.

Anyway, I'm really glad that he's got another big hit (so he can keep making a picture a year as long as he's able!), and let's face it: he does twenties/thirties/forties-set material great. I loved all the past stuff, some of which was really clever (e.g., the Surrealists not being fazed when Gil explained he was time-traveling!) But the current-day setup didn't work for me at all, hence I didn't *love* it...

 

[Nathan Dodge]

You want a detailed breakdown?

Dating back to our Atomic/Port Halcyon days, I've come to expect it!

There were no characters in the film, just one-dimensional caricatures. This worked out just fine for the historical characters, but not so much for Inez, her parents, and Paul. Allen has given us plenty of shallow women, rich conservatives, and pretentious blowhards in earlier films... but he typically made the effort to make them more shaded, complex characters, not stick-figure bad guys. I understand that he was going for a simpler, schematic past/good, present/bad feel in this story... but I never believed that Gil and Inez had *ever* been a good match. (It's hard to get as likable an actress as Rachel McAdams to come off as such a worthless, spoiled shrew, so I guess Allen's direction was okay, at least.)

I thought the parents were quite good, with Woody even giving them numerous "zingers" at the expense of Wilson's character. The father gets the last word in their political fisticuffs and it was pretty funny.

And while I did find Owen Wilson to be one of the better Allen-character stand-ins, Gil was pretty inconsistent: he failed freshman English and writes trashy scripts... but has a veneration and knowledge of the Lost Generation that shows major study. Like all of Allen's viewpoint characters, his thinking reflects Allen's grew-up-in-forties perspective, not a man of his actual generation. Allen doesn't even try to disguise this anymore, which I consider an example of how sloppy his writing is these days.

One doesn't need to get good grades to appreciate something and have extensive knowledge about it. Besides, Woody himself dropped out of college after one semester and he turned out to know a thing or two about literature.

And it had one of the biggest problems of Allen's late films - a sudden, too-rushed ending, with the dues-ex-machina arrival of the seemingly perfect girl for Gil, a character so barely sketched in during her earlier appearances that she feels like an afterthought. The pacing was way off: even though Gil had learned his lesson, and the story's dramatic freight was technically complete, the breakup scene and reintroduction of Gabrielle seemed underwritten and too quick. The film needed another ten minutes to play out, but it just kind of stopped.

The Deus ex machina was quite apparent in Mighty Aphrodite and was quite jarring. In Midnight In Paris it was pretty much determined with Adriana's last scene what her and Gil's fate would be, so I don't see the movie employing that device. Gabrielle was a beginning of something new, so it could come out of nowhere.

Look, I'm a major fan - I saw my first Woody movies back in about 1971, and have been blown away by both his major and minor films ever since. I have liked some recent ones that many folks haven't (Scoop, Cassandra's Dream, Whatever Works), but I'm not blind to the fact that he's now in his mannerist period. The same plots, characters, devices, concerns, and tropes are being recycled in new guises... but in a more scattershot, less carefully thought-out way than a decade or two ago. All of which is fine: the man has made a picture a year for forty-plus years, many of them masterpieces, and just a couple of them outright stinkers. I am in awe of Woody's talent, and think his prolific body of work will amaze - and be a goldmine to - future cultural historians.

Allen has always expressed chronic dissatisfaction with his own films and as a result has revisited the same themes multiple times. Many great artists re-interpret their own work--yes, I consider Woody Allen a great artist--Walt Whitman re-edited Leaves of Grass during the course of his lifetime, Duke Ellington and Charles Mingus constantly re-arranged their compositions during their careers in jazz, with Ellington doing so over a fifty-year period. John Ford and Howard Hawks continued to work in the Western genre and focused on the same themes. In Hawks' case, even remade one of his own films (Rio Bravo later remade as El Dorado; both of which are excellent). Martin Scorsese has revisited the gangster genre, and Barry Levinson has most every one of his movies set in Baltimore. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a filmmaker returning to certain themes and storylines during the course of their work; in fact, I'd be disappointed if an artist of Woody Allen's stature didn't return to the themes found in most of his films.

Anyway, I'm really glad that he's got another big hit (so he can keep making a picture a year as long as he's able!), and let's face it: he does twenties/thirties/forties-set material great. I loved all the past stuff, some of which was really clever (e.g., the Surrealists not being fazed when Gil explained he was time-traveling!) But the current-day setup didn't work for me at all, hence I didn't *love* it...

I *did* love this movie, though I agree that while MIP is by no means a high concept film, part of its enjoyment--at least for me--came from the amusing characterizations of the artists. It probably helps to have some knowledge of their work and lives beforehand, but I don't see any evidence that Allen was attempting to make some big intellectual point or trying to fool anyone with the movie. I enjoyed MIP for what it was: an affectionate tip of the hat to some of the writers and artists Allen--and perhaps his audience--admires. It's a film that many Fedora Loungers will enjoy.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Yes, Loungers should see it. It's clever and fun, and does a fine job in its 1920s sequences. As I've said here countless times, I'm a tough room.

I suspect that people who haven't seen all 40 previous Allen films might enjoy it even more than hardcore Allen fans like me. (I have a friend at work who's seen it twice... but he's not sure if he's ever seen a Woody Allen before.) I realize that I'm being hypercritical, but I can't really help it at this point. There were just too many things that I perceive as cheap shots for me to love it. I realize that I'm in the minority on this, but frankly, I'm used to that.

If you love it - good, enjoy! I found it to be overrated and sloppy... but we don't have to agree. And you know, Woody Allen movies are like streetcars: there'll be another one along before we know it!

 

[Nathan Dodge]

Yes, Loungers should see it. It's clever and fun, and does a fine job in its 1920s sequences.

Woody has explored the "Golden Age" numerous times, and his love for that era is well known, so Loungers should check out the following:

Zelig (1983): Faux documentary of 1920s phenomenon Leonard Zelig, the human chameleon.

The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985): Unhappy housewife Mia Farrow has a Silver Screen Dream come true when a movie character steps offscreen and into her life.

Radio Days (1987): Warm reminiscence--narrated by Woody--of his Brooklyn childhood during the 1940s.

Shadows and Fog (1992): German Experssionist homage and wonderful cinematography along with Kurt Weill music. "Kafka Lite."

Bullets Over Broadway (1994): Gangsters in Prohibition-era New York City with excellent performances from all, especially Jennifer Tilly and Chazz Palminteri.

Sweet and Lowdown (1999): Sean Penn is fantastic as a 1930s Jazz guitarist.

 

[Doctor Strange]

All of which - except arguably Shadows and Fog - are better films than Midnight In Paris.

In my humble opinion, anyway.

 

[Nathan Dodge]

All of which - except arguably Shadows and Fog - are better films than Midnight In Paris.

In my humble opinion, anyway.

Of course, Doctor...of course.

 

[Fletch]

I also think it's been refreshing for Woody to get out of New York.

You bet. But New York will never get out of Woody. There will always be that feeling that classic art and archetypal psychic conflicts are the center of life - that they are what really matter.

That to me is an essentially New York way of seeing the world - the idea that even as you are living in the moment, you are an abstraction, a type, an I-told-you-so.

 

[Nathan Dodge]

"Nostalgia is denial - denial of the painful present... the name for this denial is golden age thinking - the erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one one's living in - its a flaw in the romantic imagination of those people who find it difficult to cope with the present."

~Paul (Michael Sheen) in Midnight In Paris

 

[davidraphael]

As a Woody Allen fan I thought MIP was a wonderful charming film. And I've seen every movie he's been involved with, often multiple times.
As a screenwriter, I was also impressed. I don't think it needed extra time to play out, as has been suggested in this thread. To do so would have missed the point a bit.

Allen's learned to give us the shorthand of story development, especially if it's not crucial to the point he is making. He's succinct and to the point. As they say "enter a scene at the last possible moment and then get out as quickly as you can"

for example, the reason the relationship breakup was so short was because it's not what the film is about. It's just subplot and by that point in the story the breakup is inevitable.
And meeting the girl at the end is not really a Deus ex Machina because a true DeM brings about a spontaneous resolution to the main through-line of the story (the relationship plot is only a supporting illustration of the main plot). Besides, he'd already met her a couple of times before so, again, not strictly a DeM.

The scene that does bring about the important character change, or character arc, is the one with Adriana and Gil in La Belle Epoque, a scene/sequence which, rightly, was given more weight.

"Gil was pretty inconsistent: he failed freshman English and writes trashy scripts... but has a veneration and knowledge of the Lost Generation that shows major study."

Not necessarily. I can actually use myself as an example here: I have virtually no education, but I have sold screenplays and I even work for universities copy-editing academic books and articles about culture and history (indeed, I sometimes find myself correcting some of the biggest names in academia (though not without some angst I may add!). I also know the Lost Generation inside and out and have been reading, and reading about, Hem, Passos, Stein, Picasso, Sara and Gerald Murphy et al for years.

I think the 'inconsistency' you refer to is actually thoughtful character work. To have made the character a literature whiz with a model career/education, would perhaps have been too obvious, ie 2 dimensional


Yes, Woody Allen does return again and again to the same kind of plots. Isn't that what a great artist does? ie, keep going back and chiseling away at a philosophy, concept or theme, to hone what they are trying to say? Woody even named a movie after his life's artistic pursuit: Love and Death, and it's no random choice that he based this film on the Russians - throughout his career he has approached the same Dostoevskian themes (Crimes and Misdemeanors, Match Point etc).

I think Woody is one of the most important filmmakers in American history, but he has made some poor movies too. I agree that Shadows and Fog was weak, as were Scoop, Hollywood Ending, Everything you wanted to know about sex, Jade Scorpion, Small Time Crooks, and Melinda and Melinda....

 

[ButteMT61]

@david: excellent post. Completely agree with you!

 

[Nathan Dodge]

"Nostalgia is denial - denial of the painful present... the name for this denial is golden age thinking - the erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one one's living in - its a flaw in the romantic imagination of those people who find it difficult to cope with the present."

~Paul (Michael Sheen) in Midnight In Paris

You bet. But New York will never get out of Woody. There will always be that feeling that classic art and archetypal psychic conflicts are the center of life - that they are what really matter.

That to me is an essentially New York way of seeing the world - the idea that even as you are living in the moment, you are an abstraction, a type, an I-told-you-so.

While Woody has always been smitten with the 1920s-1940s, his inner New Yorker can't help but cast a cynical eye over all he surveys. The fact that the know-it-all Paul is correct in his analysis of Gil's romanticism of the past shows that Woody himself is just as wary of the existence of any "Golden Age."

 

[davidraphael]

While Woody has always been smitten with the 1920s-1940s, his inner New Yorker can't help but cast a cynical eye over all he surveys. The fact that the know-it-all Paul is correct in his analysis of Gil's romanticism of the past shows that Woody himself is just as wary of the existence of any "Golden Age."

Indeed. Exactly right.
This really is the point or 'controlling idea' of the story's outcome.
It often works that there are 3 or more characters or points-of-view that represent different (sometimes opposing) aspects of the 'controlling idea'.

In this case:
Paul represents the idea, but only intellectually. He has never 'felt' or experienced it; he only understands it cerebrally, academically. His understanding is not complete.
Adriana never understands/learns the idea; she will be lost forever in romanticism and nostalgia
Gil is a romantic who eventually learns that his own age can be a golden age. He understands it intellectually and emotionally. ie, he develops a complete understanding that his own time is as good as any.
There's also a kind of 4th perspective, which is purely cynical, represented by Gil's girlfriend, but in particular her parents - There is no golden age; there's only now and it can only be experienced materialistically, ie, there's no romance at all.

 

[Culpepper]

My friends told me about this movie many times, But I haven't watch it..
But I will try to watch this movie in this week... Thanks for sharing your link.

 

[Nathan Dodge]

Indeed. Exactly right.
This really is the point or 'controlling idea' of the story's outcome.
It often works that there are 3 or more characters or points-of-view that represent different (sometimes opposing) aspects of the 'controlling idea'.

Woody did this in Another Woman, where the film's title could refer to five different things in that movie.

 

[davidraphael]

Another Woman was a really great film. I never tire of it.

 

[skyvue]

I think the 'inconsistency' you refer to is actually thoughtful character work. To have made the character a literature whiz with a model career/education, would perhaps have been too obvious, ie 2 dimensional

I think I may have been the first to posit that the movie's protagonist is not a terribly believable character, and I stand by it. Are there examples in the world of people with limited formal education who set about to educate themselves? Absolutely. Groucho Marx was just such a person.

And I don't think anyone's saying Gil had to be a literature whiz with model career/education -- I'm certainly not -- but somewhere in between that and the two-dimensional (at best) quick sketch that we ended up with would been preferable.

One has to give the audience some inkling, some insight into how that dichotomy in that character's life came to be and how it manifests itself in the present day.

You also have to cast an actor who can help the audience make that leap. As much as I have occasionally enjoyed Owen Wilson's work in the past, I didn't buy him as this self-made intellectual. I didn't believe believe that Prufrock was his mantra (much as I didn't buy Jack Nicholson as a schlubby Omaha resident newly retired from the insurance industry in ABOUT SCHMIDT).

I'm also a writer and an editor with training as an actor, and I know that if an actor wishes to assay a wide range of characters in his or her career, it's best to work toward that goal from the very beginning. Once the public has a certain notion of who you are, right or wrong, it's not easy to break out of that mold.

Wilson played quirky and/or intelligent characters early on, but he soon settled for playing relative dimwits in mainstream comedies. It's a decision that no doubt padded his bank account, but his equity as an actor with range took a hit.

Had the character been more carefully crafted by Allen, I think Wilson could have pulled it off, but Allen gave him little to work with. Shorthand is fine, but there has to be some dimension, some depth, written into the character. It can't all be left up to the actor, especially if the actor's trying to break out of a rut carved by a string of characters who are the near-polar opposite of the one he's now trying to pull off.

And with respect, unless your screenplays are mindless tripe, you aren't really Gil's real-life equivalent. It's not just that he flunked out of freshman English, it's that we have no idea how he's occupied himself in the years since, except by writing crappy screenplays. So when out of the blue, he delivers a line or two that asks us to accept him as the expert on the literary and artistic greats that resided in Paris in the 1920s, it's jarring. It would be less so, in my opinion, with another actor in the role, but it's not entirely his fault. Allen must share some of the blame. A bit of screenwriter's longhand was called for -- some filling out of the character -- and he didn't deliver it.

I liked the movie just fine; I enjoyed it more than any other Woody Allen movie of recent vintage. But it could have been something really special, and in my opinion it fell short of that.

 

[davidraphael]

You also have to cast an actor who can help the audience make that leap. As much as I have occasionally enjoyed Owen Wilson's work in the past, I didn't buy him as this self-made intellectual.

Perhaps your prior knowledge of Wilson also contributed to your dissatisfaction with him in the role.
As far as I am aware this is the very first film I have seen with Owen Wilson in it so I had no preconceptions. To me the character seemed like a dreamer who was almost obsessively interested in the past (after all nostalgia is a form of dreaming) so his knowledge of it didn't surprise me at all. In fact, I thought Allen made sure that Gil actually lacked quite a bit of knowledge - the Paul character always seems to know more than Gil, much to Gil's chagrin, and we're happy when Gil, having learned in the past a detail about one of Picasso's painting, is finally able to outsmart Paul...

Some of the complaints you have of this character I actually had with another Woody stand-in in a previous film: Jason Biggs' character in Anything Else. I didn't at all buy this young guy in the role - he had the personality and experiences of a middle-aged man. Still, I liked the story overall and thought that the screenplay was well constructed.