Midnight in Paris is a good film about a whimsical adventure in Paris where a hack screenwriter, Gil (Owen Wilson) is forced to come to terms with the illustrious past which he esteems so much. The film is interesting but certainly not as riveting as No Country for Old Men (2007). The film does boast some colorful performances particularly from those actors that play literary icons in the west however the film never penetrates to the core thereby evoking some sort of emotion. I understand that the film is not simply about evoking emotion but in the proving or disproving of an argument with regards to the golden age fallacy. This is the notion that certain past eras are better than the present day in which one lives. Allen explores this fallacy but his conclusions are rightfully not definite but exploratory. The present life of the protagonist is not sufficiently explored to provide a suitable contrast with the past and so he meanders a lot and does not seem as interesting a character. His experience therefore in meeting these literary icons is more interesting than his character. It makes you wonder though that had it not been for his foray into the past the film would not be as interesting. This element of time jumping does not tie into his character sufficiently so that we can come to major conclusions about human interaction. He is merely a vehicle for the viewer as opposed to being affecting as a character study which would imply that he is a near original within the context of humanity. It is ironic that this particular film does not measure up to the standard of Allen’s earlier films which were more detailed than this one is. The whimsy in this film also seems vulgarized in parts when it could have been a more effective element in the story. I wished Allen had made the escapades of Gil into a character study thereby having him explore his psyche and the physical locations once inhabited by these famous writers. A simple illustration, for instance, could be to actually highlight the past locations from a present day context and then have them come alive and so in that sense the viewer could have been more interested in his journey i.e. Gil coming from the present into the past. There are several links missing here when you simply meet a car at midnight and then you are physically transported to the past. This is what is missing in this film. I have no problem with the actual fantasy but fantasy is always better when it is integrated with reality or makes reality more vibrant than it actually is. This is why the development of Gil’s present day could have been more effective in providing a contrast with the past.
The fallacy explored in the film however is the most interesting aspect of the film and there were some obvious plot devices in the script but the film still comes together and we understand the foundation of the argument. The city of Paris is excessively praised in this film. I understand that the romantic aspect is supposed to contrast with the logical aspect. It is still good to see Allen get back to what he does best: speaking about city life.
What’s good about this film?
The best thing about this film is actually the most important thing: the golden age fallacy. This fallacy is defined in the film as a condition where the distant past appears to be a better era than the present day in which one currently resides. This is an interesting motif and when Gil goes on his romp through 1920’s Paris encountering literary icons such as Ernest Hemingway (Corey Stoll), F. Scott Fitzgerald Tom Hiddleston) and Gertrude Stein (Kathy Bates) there is clearly an evocative picture being drawn (maybe by Picasso who is also featured in this film). There is no clear cut resolution about this fallacy simply because fallacies account for the emotional expression of many human beings. If you’re not logical you are indulging in fallacious arguments however fallacious arguments lay the groundwork for logical rigour. There can be no proof with regards to a fallacy and so it becomes the source of endless speculation and insights. The less it can be proved the more interesting it becomes especially as our lives revolve around them. A fallacy remains the source for many an artistic expression. We saw this fallacy in No Country for Old Men, which was a better film, since it is grounded in a objective reality that does not account for emotional expression. The sheriff in that film reminisces about the good old days simply because he is overwhelmed by present day circumstances. In that film his fallacy is dismissed by his old friend when he says ‘What you got ain’t nothing new. This country is (has always been) hard on people. It isn’t all waiting on you. That’s vanity.’ The present day perspective of the sheriff was reinforced by the actions surrounding the drug trade in the United States along the Mexican/Texas border. In Midnight in Paris we see the same dissonance with Gil however as he is taken into the past he slowly comes to the realization that in every era you will long for the past because we are human however the past cannot be reconciled with the present simply because life must go on. What’s past is past. It is good that he came to this conclusion but we are only human and will always long for the good old days no matter the appeal to logic. We see in Gil the inability to find common ground with his wife, Inez, because of this fallacy and how he is unable to fathom all her shady dealings with a ‘pedantic’ styled ‘pseudo intellectual’. Gil’s relationship with his wife and family is therefore essential in understanding how people affected by this fallacy are unable to have relationships with the other type that embraces the present. Every old fashioned trinket that Gil buys Inez’s mother considers to be cheap.
Gil is able to find two women that share his interests in the history of Paris. One is located in the 1920’s where Gil is transported to: Adriana (Marion Cotillard) who shares his nostalgia for the past. The two are unable to be reconciled for she longs for the 1890’s which would be one step backward for Gil. He tries to explain to her that for him the 20’s were a golden age however as she is from the 20’s she cannot understand why he would see this as a golden age era. The other woman to share in his sympathies regarding the past is a French woman, Gabrielle (Lea Seydoux) who deals in antiques. This is all well done for it shows that while you cannot reconcile the past with the present one must come to the understanding that activities in the past did the shape the present day so it is not something one can logically escape. Every past era seems like the foundation era of the present despite the different expressions. Jamaicans for instance long for the rule of Britain despite the fact that we have attained our own independence. We still cling to Britain’s model of governance associated with the monarchy despite it being irreconcilable with our status as an independent nation. This sort of fallacy can therefore be a hindrance to one’s operative style. One favourite scene of mine was Gil listening to a gramophone playing the song of a particular singer (cannot recall his name) whom he had the pleasure of meeting in his romantic trips back to the 1920’s. When he asks Gabrielle about the particular singer she says that he is memorable because he sang a lot of songs about Paris; meaning that how we see things are sometimes influenced by past artistic expressions such as music. It is no surprise that Gil longs for the past especially as he is an aspiring novelist who is fed up with his job as a hack screenwriter which brings in the money. He has reached the stage where he wants to be removed from the crass commercialism that is pervading current artistic ventures and indulge in more creative outlets such as what the city of Paris, which has a long history with the arts and romantic expression, offers. His views about his novel (which he allows no one of the present day to read), following on from the advice of Hemingway and Gertrude Stein, is that he must try and resist being so logical and indulge his imagination by allowing it to go wild a little. Gertrude Stein and Hemingway both state that all art must be life affirming in some way for it to resonate throughout the ages etc. It is clear that for Gil to be in love with Paris he must have heard stories of its magnificence and of its glorious past.
His impression of the city seems a bit naïve although Allen clearly states that it is a model for his artistic expression. Are his views of Paris intentionally portrayed as naïve or is it unintentionally portrayed this way? If intentionally portrayed as naïve it would highlight this fallacy even further for we are made to believe in the greatness of past eras as if they were perfect completely unaware of the, at times, barbaric and backward nature of some of these so called great societies. Paris like any other city only helps to mask the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeois class and their lackeys. Yeah it’s a romantic city and full of bright lights but not even that can mask the corruption underneath i.e. the eternal class struggle and the constant exaltation of the bourgeois class and its consolidation of power in the form of industrial centres such as this. If the naïvete of Gil is unintentionally portrayed in such a manner then it is a weakness in the film to have him ramble on and on about how great Paris is. I am sure it has a lot of cultural amusements but it is all a concentration of capital like any other city which is given a panache by a feeble romanticism that deludes the consumer into believing that this is something remarkable and god given. This is just another feature of the commodity and capital fetish.
The presentation of Paris itself is well done in this film. Woody Allen knows how to build a context and the opening shots reminds one of the opening shots of Manhattan (1979). There are elements of the soundtrack that date back to the 1920’s and helps in moulding the viewer’s perception of the city. I did not see much of the famous lights spoke about by the characters. In the film it is said they can be seen from space however it would be good if that could be proven. The lights in Paris seem no brighter than the other major cities and so it can seem that all of this talk is plain fanaticism. The context is well constructed here and so whether it is romantic or not does not matter for there is a suitable contrast between the 20’s and the present day.
There is a light and amusing, caricature based, supporting cast which adds some dimensions to the film. There is the ‘pseudo intellectual’ that recites which contrasts with Gil’s more uninformed and relaxed nature. There is Inez’s mother who states that all of Gil’s purchases are cheap and then there is her father who is a conservative by nature and who contrasts with Gil’s liberal attitude. There is Ernest Hemingway who is portrayed as a man of the world and a astute observer who believes in straightforward prose (his customary writing style) which is clear and to the point. There is Gertrude Stein, the famous art collector who is also a strong literary critic, who is portrayed as a woman who literally consumes art as it is her one true love. She distinguishes herself by being the one who owns the hub through which all of these artists seem to congregate. F. Scott Fitzgerald is portrayed as an unassuming individual whose love for his frivolous wife must have been the source of his novel Tender is the Night. There are other characters that add to the whole experience of Paris across different generations.
It was also good to see that Gil was attempting to escape the commercialism associated with screenwriting in the movie industry and his urge to seek true creative inspiration.
What’s bad about this film?
The main issue I had with the film was with some of the parts of the film that dealt with character Gil and his golden age fallacy syndrome. The character Gil seems to be a mere vehicle or as a means to explore this fallacy as opposed to the viewer gaining any real insights into his character. His character is a centerpiece of the film but it is not really clear whether what distinguishes him as an individual. It is strange that he carries around these emotions in his heart and refuses to share his manuscript with others simply because he disdains contemporary perspectives. Then why does he plan to publish it for the public. His love for the city is almost obsessive and there is nothing that distinguishes Paris from other great cities of the world who have just as much if not more lights and just as much exploitation. His excesses seem to be the source of the film’s momentum. His uninformed position is informed by his visiting the locale thereby allowing him to come to the present and challenge the opinions of others. His present day activities are rarely developed and he mostly just mopes around and lament. It is clear that he is getting married and that he is a screenwriter but we do not get a sense of the creative decisions that force him to wish to relocate to Paris. There is no sense of his work as a screen writer and why he feels that craft is not up to scratch artistically with a novel when in fact a screenplay is the basis for film or photography in motion. It must require some form of artistic insights. It would be good if Allen could show the inspirations for Gil’s work (apart from the nostalgia) and the demands of the job in California that make him wish to relocate.
The context of Paris is well developed but what is it that is pushing him to this particular city. What is it that distinguishes Paris from the others? In older Allen films he would have provided some form of contrast which he does not do here. He does not distinguish between a Paris from a New York or London or a Tokyo and a Shanghai. The film was not really clear here and why these characters obsess over the city. I understand that it must have been the source of artistic inspiration but it is not the only one I am sure. What brought all these great artists such as Hemingway to this city? Is it that Gil found himself in the presence of those who influenced him and he is simply following in their footsteps? Is Paris such a haven that in the long run all great artists must pass through this particular city? Allen could have developed this some more because Paris is not the only city that is a source of artistic inspiration. Hemingway for instance wrote two of his great novels about the human experience in Spain. Why are all these artists in Paris? And What do they think about Paris? These questions were not really resolved apart from the singer who sang a lot of songs about the city. Monet painted his water lilies here and what of it. I am sure other artists embraced their landscapes to create stirring works of still art. I would have understood it better with regards to the literary icons however and then it would be clear that Gil was following an established path. The notion of the artist and the city would have been better explored. I also never really understood fully what was happening in the 1920’s which would justify Gil’s love for Paris during this time. It was the roaring twenties for sure but Gil coming from the present could have explained that clearly for the viewer. Paris like any other city is a source for mass exploitation and in all of Gil’s obsessions he never once portrays a potential dark side to such an illustrious monstrosity.
With regards to the fallacy it should have been made clear that things seem so much better in the past because it was a time for expansion. In the present day expansion or growth is not visible. In the present one sometimes feels as if nothing is happening whereas if you look to the past you are able to track growth in the form of development from one period to the other. Growth is not only measured in economics but in artistic expression when a particular set of literary lights laid the foundation for future generations. In their time however these artists never saw themselves like that unless they got older. Therefore once you are in a position to track some form of growth you would have to make some reference to the past. This element was not dealt with sufficiently: a justification for the fallcy instead of seeking to disprove it.
I also had a problem with some of the vulgar elements of Allen’s use of the whimsical elements i.e. a cross section between two different time periods. We see Gil come from the past with all these insights about life which many people from the present could have provided him with. Anyone could tell him the wife was cheating you would not need Hemingway to tell you that. He makes mention of names that are not featured such as William Faulkner and so every time Gil goes for a ride into fantasy land he meets someone new. It is not clear why they all have to be in Paris apart from the character of Adriana. There is also the fact that it does not blend with reality. If Allen chose to pursue Gil’s psyche he would have made it more endearing because the transition to the past is not fully established. He takes a car at midnight and is transported to the land where these literary lights reside. Where does the car go? Is it a myth of the city? Is it a dream vehicle? When Gil is followed the P.I is also transported to another locale from the distant past and we are not sure how he got there. Was that his idea of the beautiful past? It is because these links are not established that the whimsical element seems a bit too redundant at times. The portrayal of these classic artists which abound in this film all seem unnecessary since they are portrayed as mere caricatures who have little or no bearing on the plot. An example is the painter Salvador (Adrien Brody) whose presence made no sense apart from amusement where he speaks of the rhinoceros. He is only featured once and then he is gone and this begs the question as to how relevant are all these famous characters. Some of the characters are portrayed according to type and so Hemingway seems like the Hemingway we all know. He is therefore caricaturized with no real bearing on the plot especially as his connection to Paris is not fully established. F. Scott Fitzgerald and his wife are also portrayed according to type without offering any new insights just fatalistic ones based on what everyone else knows. These characters of the distant past are being portrayed according to established type. How was Gil able to deliver his book to Gertrude stein? If the intermediate links, from the moment the car drives off with Gil to the point where he is left off, was firmly established to make his back and forth travelling seem plausible how can we believe the essence of his story apart from the fallacy. Does he go through a portal? It would have been good to see Gil fraternizing with the proletariat of society who would have been more likely to retain the cultural expressions of the past without any hypocrisy. Everything becomes an aesthetic when he is transported i.e. everything is sanitized.
Gil does not really make a definite break with the past for how can he since we never knew how he got there? He learns to embrace the present but it is never really explained if he makes a definite break with fantasy land considering that he has lost Adriana. Is it that he could go there anytime he wishes? There is a lot to work out when you juxtapose reality with fantasy. This is the essence of magical realism.
All in All a good film although Allen does not provide the necessary dimensions as he would normally have in his earlier films.
No comments:
Post a Comment