Random thoughts on Woody Allen's "Midnight in Paris"
July 7 2011, 9:51 PM
I hadn't been to a Woody Allen film in ages, but I heard good things about
this one. I decided to go tonight. I enjoyed how Allen remixes his own type of film with films by Alan Rudolph
and Christopher Nolan. Rudolph did some great historical films, including
The Moderns, which is similar to this in how the protagonist manages to met
anyone who is anyone in Paris in the 20s. (Also, like The Moderns,
Hemingway comes off as a buffoon, something that struck me about both
films). And Allen uses going back in time the way Nolan uses dreams, even
the way he layers them. And both films feature the wonderful Marion C. That
all said, it is still a Woody Allen film. The film was almost derailed for me at the beginning, as the financee and
her family and friends are so annoying and insufferable that I began to
become irritated with the film. However, the magic literally kicks in and
more of the film gets away from them, which is good. They really come
across as characters we've seen in lots of old NYC films that Allen has
made, and they certainly motivate the protagonist to do what he does, but I
felt that could have been established a lot quicker. For a lot of Americans, Paris in the 20s was a golden age for them. But for
others, the Belle Epoque before WWI was a greater era. The film uses that
nicely to poke at nostalgia and longing for another time. I still thought the idea of what is the best time to live could have been
explored further. The film felt slight to me, as if Allen was pressed to
get 90 minutes of material. Allen I believe pumps up a film a year
nowadays, which is really a sprint for a filmmaker of feature films. It
feels that way in the film. The film is lighthearted and romantic, but it isn't a comedy. It is funny
at times, but it is still a serious film. I used to be surprised that so many good actors appear in his films, but I
can imagine it is good work. No doubt lots of the actors with small roles
had a blast playing Gertrude Stein or Dali. And if you are Owen Wilson or
Rachel McAdams, you get to break out of your usual fare and do something
different. I wonder sometimes when the day will come when Allen just can't get money
to make films. Certainly for this one there seemed to be lots of European
backers. I imagine Allen would shoot using iPhones if he had to. Of course the music is phenomenal and Paris is gorgeous. I was swept along
at the beginning of all the set shots, and it took me some time to realize:
yeah, Allen is doing that so he can let the great Sidney Bichet number play
in its entirety. Anyway, enjoyable film. I happen to think we live in a golden age now. I
think Woody might agree.
-----------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld.
this one. I decided to go tonight. I enjoyed how Allen remixes his own type of film with films by Alan Rudolph
and Christopher Nolan. Rudolph did some great historical films, including
The Moderns, which is similar to this in how the protagonist manages to met
anyone who is anyone in Paris in the 20s. (Also, like The Moderns,
Hemingway comes off as a buffoon, something that struck me about both
films). And Allen uses going back in time the way Nolan uses dreams, even
the way he layers them. And both films feature the wonderful Marion C. That
all said, it is still a Woody Allen film. The film was almost derailed for me at the beginning, as the financee and
her family and friends are so annoying and insufferable that I began to
become irritated with the film. However, the magic literally kicks in and
more of the film gets away from them, which is good. They really come
across as characters we've seen in lots of old NYC films that Allen has
made, and they certainly motivate the protagonist to do what he does, but I
felt that could have been established a lot quicker. For a lot of Americans, Paris in the 20s was a golden age for them. But for
others, the Belle Epoque before WWI was a greater era. The film uses that
nicely to poke at nostalgia and longing for another time. I still thought the idea of what is the best time to live could have been
explored further. The film felt slight to me, as if Allen was pressed to
get 90 minutes of material. Allen I believe pumps up a film a year
nowadays, which is really a sprint for a filmmaker of feature films. It
feels that way in the film. The film is lighthearted and romantic, but it isn't a comedy. It is funny
at times, but it is still a serious film. I used to be surprised that so many good actors appear in his films, but I
can imagine it is good work. No doubt lots of the actors with small roles
had a blast playing Gertrude Stein or Dali. And if you are Owen Wilson or
Rachel McAdams, you get to break out of your usual fare and do something
different. I wonder sometimes when the day will come when Allen just can't get money
to make films. Certainly for this one there seemed to be lots of European
backers. I imagine Allen would shoot using iPhones if he had to. Of course the music is phenomenal and Paris is gorgeous. I was swept along
at the beginning of all the set shots, and it took me some time to realize:
yeah, Allen is doing that so he can let the great Sidney Bichet number play
in its entirety. Anyway, enjoyable film. I happen to think we live in a golden age now. I
think Woody might agree.
-----------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld.