Midnight in Paris

[Nathan Dodge]

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...

Same here. I'd only been vaguely aware of Wilson from his roles in The Cable Guy and Starsky and Hutch and had no opinion of him as an actor one way or another, other than the fact that his resume looked like several poor artistic choices. Somehow, I don't think the audience that watches a Woody Allen film is the same rabble that rushes to see Drillbit Taylor, so he's probably a surprise to many who saw him in Midnight In Paris; he was to me, that's for sure.

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.

skyvue, you're selling both the character and less-than-PH.D-type people short. I've already mentioned in my long, rambling response earlier in this thread (that no one's read) that Woody Allen himself is a college dropout with extensive interest and knowledge of literature and the arts, so why can't an Allen character have the same? In the movie, we already know that he's a successful "hack" screenwriter who's done well despite his lack of *formal* education.

The overachieving but undereducated character has been used before in Woody's movies and not just with the Allen protagonist, but supporting characters, too. Like in Manhattan Murder Mystery: Mr. House says of Brown University--"Nice color." He never attended college, yet runs a movie theater and loves opera and film.

Once again referring to my ramblefest, "superior" actors Kenneth Branagh and Edward Norton actually pale in comparison to Owen Wilson in that Wilson comes up with a variation of the Allen protaganist whereas Branagh and Norton are merely aping the Allen persona and emerging as limp caricatures. At least give Wilson credit for doing a better job than those otherwise better actors. Funny that the guy who you've pigeonholed as a dimwit fares better than two Oscar nominees...at least IMO.

 

[davidraphael]

Kenneth Branagh and Edward Norton actually pale in comparison to Owen Wilson

Absolutely, Branagh is my least favourite WA stand-in to date - he did this awful, cringing, over-the-top impression that was little more than a very crude caricature.

Norton I didn't mind so much - he delivered a clumsily innocent Jimmy Stewart type character, though he was perhaps a little cartoonish compared with the more realistic performances of other actors in the same film, such as Alan Alda and Julia Roberts

 

[skyvue]

Wilson did what he does. I agree, he didn't ape Allen, as some others have done, and that's to his credit, but I don't know that he could if he tried. Range is not Wilson's strength, so there was no noticeable difference between what he did in MIP and what he does in the dopier Hollywood comedies he's more often seen in.

And sorry, but citing Woody Allen as another example of a real-life self-educated man who was an academic failure doesn't sway me. I'm convinced such people exist -- I even offered a prominent example of one myself.

But the difference is, Allen wasn't working in Hollywood cranking out dimwitted scripts all these years; he was swimming in different waters (and his cinematic influences, high-falutin' all, have always been very evident in his own pictures -- to his detriment, some of his critics have insisted over the years). Even his earliest work, as a standup comic, was whip-smart and had an intellectual base. So no one's ever thought Allen a Hollywood hack. Ever. He's always been perceived as an intellectual.

Gil is not like Woody. We have no history with him, and there's no particular sign in the early going that he's an intellectual or an aesthete; in fact, we're fed plenty of evidence that he's neither of those things. So we have to be made to accept and believe -- by the actor or the screenwriter or, hopefully, by both -- that he's more nuanced and interesting than his surface characteristics would suggest. Merely having him shout "Profrock is my mantra" won't cut it, if we don't believe for a second that Prufrock is, indeed, his mantra. And neither I nor my wife -- who felt more strongly about it than I did, even -- believed it.

I can see that guy knowing who Hemingway is. Maybe Dali. But Djuna Barnes? T. S. Eliot? Ain't buying it.

Fifteen years ago, there was no bigger Woody Allen on the planet than me. I was first in line for opening night tix every single time one of his picture was released. One of the five or six highlights of my life was meeting him in person and getting to tell him a story that he found engaging and amusing. I could have died happy that night.

But his films have fallen off steadily over that time. The dialogue has become overly familiar, as if created by a software application designed to crank out Woody Allen-esque jokes. I agree that his films made outside NYC have had their moments, but they weren't yet returns to form. I think Midnight in Paris the closest he's come in years to reaching the creative heights again, but enjoyable as it was, it fell short. I hope it's a sign of fine things to come, and not a mere blip.

 

[HadleyH]

All I want to know is when is Midnight coming to cable TV here in Sydney! :Cry:

 

[Nathan Dodge]

Gil is not like Woody. We have no history with him, and there's no particular sign in the early going that he's an intellectual or an aesthete; in fact, we're fed plenty of evidence that he's neither of those things. So we have to be made to accept and believe -- by the actor or the screenwriter or, hopefully, by both -- that he's more nuanced and interesting than his surface characteristics would suggest. Merely having him shout "Profrock is my mantra" won't cut it, if we don't believe for a second that Prufrock is, indeed, his mantra. And neither I nor my wife -- who felt more strongly about it than I did, even -- believed it.

I can see that guy knowing who Hemingway is. Maybe Dali. But Djuna Barnes? T. S. Eliot? Ain't buying it.

How about that whole time travel thing? Did you buy that?

Seems like Owen Wilson is the root of all evil with you, and I understand that he's a "like him or hate him" kind of performer, but not only did I like him in the role, I believed him in it.

His love of the past is mentioned in the film, when he talks about his Guy-who-runs-a-nostalgia-shop novel and Paul utters that quote about denial I posted earlier here. Clearly Gil Pender has his head in the clouds and wants to live and work in Paris and he has a weariness about him regarding his hack screenwriter occupation. Remember when Inez' mother mentions the godawful Hollywood movie they saw that they laughed and laughed at, and Gil responds wearily, "I probably wrote it"? He clearly hates what he does, so I completely accept that the character has interests and career goals other than the unfulfilling but well-paying job he has. Just because the guy crashed and burned in lit class doesn't mean he doesn't like the stuff. Heck, I have a couple of friends who're as unscholarly as a person can get, but they worship the work of Lord Byron and Robert Lowell, so perhaps I need more screenwriter friends to help maintain my incredulity over the Owen Wilson character.

As Isaac Davis once said: "You should meet some stupid people once in a while, you could learn something."

 

[Nathan Dodge]

Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald (Alison Pill and Tom Hiddleston) in Midnight In Paris.

 

[skyvue]

Seems like Owen Wilson is the root of all evil with you, and I understand that he's a "like him or hate him" kind of performer, but not only did I like him in the role, I believed him in it.

I like him fine, actually. I just think he was miscast (and that the role was underwritten).

 

[Nathan Dodge]

I like him fine, actually. I just think he was miscast (and that the role was underwritten).

Not that it'll change your mind, but here's an excellent review of Midnight In Paris which IMO has some interesting insights into Wilson's role.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald (Alison Pill and Tom Hiddleston) in Midnight In Paris.

Don't get me started on how completely, carelessly inaccurate "F. Scott Fitzgerald"'s costume is.


In the 1920s, Fitzgerald wore what amounted to a WASP uniform: Brooks Brothers natural-shoulder 3-piece single-breasted suits (usually tweed or flannel) and norfolk jackets (tweed or linen). His vests were NEVER double-breasted, but single-breasted (with no lapels, ever). In the '20s, Fitzgerald's Brooks Brothers shirts almost always had buttondown collars, and his ties were almost always repp stripes, foulards, or knits.


In short: 'trad' and 'preppy' through and through ... like Scott Fitzgerald himself. Dressing Fitzgerald's character as if he were, say, Carlos Gardel? Well, that's a huge disservice to the man whom Woody Allen is ostensibly trying to honor.


A quick search through Google Images would make this plain to any costumer. How could "Midnight in Paris" have screwed up so badly?

 

[Nathan Dodge]

In short: 'trad' and 'preppy' through and through ... like Scott Fitzgerald himself. Dressing Fitzgerald's character as if he were, say, Carlos Gardel? Well, that's a huge disservice to the man whom Woody Allen is ostensibly trying to honor.

Fascinating! Thanks for pointing this out...I was going to ask "Did they get the clothes right?"

 

[Marc Chevalier]

They did a pretty fine job on the women's clothes, and Hemingway and Dali looked authentic and great! For some reason I can't understand, Fitzgerald was the one they messed up. (I have a soft spot for that guy, so it really burned me up.)

 

[Nathan Dodge]

Midnight in Paris is due on DVD and BLU-Ray Tuesday December 20, 2011. Extras on the BLU include a photo gallery and "Midnight in Cannes", which I guess is footage from the film's May premiere at Cannes Film Festival.

 

[ButteMT61]

Midnight in Paris is due on DVD and BLU-Ray Tuesday December 20, 2011. Extras on the BLU include a photo gallery and "Midnight in Cannes", which I guess is footage from the film's May premiere at Cannes Film Festival.

thanks for the info. Might pick that up...

 

[Nathan Dodge]

Turns out the regular DVD release of MIP will also include the "Midnight in Cannes" bonus, which in Woody Allen DVD releases may as well constitute a "Deluxe Edition"! Woody's never been keen on additional material with his films.

 

[Chasseur]

Finally saw this one on the plane. Its cute and fun to watch, nice premise, but as many have earlier said while its not the wort Wood Allen movie, its not the best either. But I found it enjoyable, though I am a died in the wool Franophile and love Paris so I'm an easy sell...

 

[ron521]

Midnight In Paris: A film about a man who yearns for the 1920's

Just saw the film "Midnight In Paris" about a man (Justin Wilson), a writer, who wishes he could have lived during the 1920's, when his literary idols (Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Stein) lived in Paris. In the course of the story, he gets his wish, and enjoys his encounters with numerous expatriate Americans who were famous during the Jazz Age. For a while, he spends his days in the present, and his nights in the past. The story is made interesting by his deteriorating relationship with his fiance (Rachel McAdams) in the present, and his developing connection with a beautiful Parisian model who is dating Picasso in the 20's. Eventually, he reaches a point where he must make a choice, but circumstances which arise make the choice difficult.

Won't say more so as to avoid any spoilers, but I enjoyed this movie much more than I expected to. Woody Allen directed, and I've never enjoyed any of his films so much as this one.
Recommended.

 

[Blackjack]

Just watched it on cable....loved every minute of it!!!!!

 

[Doctor Strange]

http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?56556-Midnight-in-Paris

 

[filfoster]

Wow! Wasn't that a great movie...Allen is back!!!! I loved Owen Wilsons portrayal of Gil, he was in a way Allen's new Avatar...all the Woody mannerisms without the neurosis. And it was great to see Rachel McAdams break out from the "girl next door" mold, I just wish they gave us a little more of her. Any body up to put together a 1920's night in the metro NY area?

I thought I had some original thoughts after seeing the movie but you have verbalized them. I predict Owen Wilson has a future as the on-screen Woody Allen in future Wood man projects. His persona is pitch perfect for Allen's quirky, neurotic humor. Every time I feared he would 'jump the track' and over act or become mannered, he didn't. And yes, the story line and production made us want a lot longer movie. I agree this Allen movie is as good as it needs to be.

 

[hatophile]

I saw it this weekend. Seems Owen is the blond, WASPy new Woody. I thought it was quite enjoyable.