The moment that stuck out to me was the iconic moment of the film. Gil is sitting on the stairs, next thing you know he is being beckoned to come with the people in the car to come along, and then he gets into the car. The moment is him really stepping into the car. Allen uses movement as a mode to switch from reality to fantasy. This is shown a majority of the film with Gil walking in Paris every night. Allen does want us to question the subversive illusions.
Allen does this moment so close to reality, that many people would not question why or how is he Gil leaving reality and entering a new period in history. We all get in cars and it takes us from one destination to the next. When we go to see a film as Braudy would say we immerse ourselves into films that are the closest to reality, even if we never figure out what editing and setting the director has done.
It is not normal how Gil transfer from one moment to the next, but some people really go to the movies to get away from real life for a while. So we take what we get when go and see films, because it is a release for some. Critics have looked at Allen’s film on the surface too much because it looks like a traditional Hollywood film. But I Believe with a Woody Allen film there is always more than the eyes and mind sees.
Most of the people I have discussed Midnight in Paris with would agree with you, Sherrinette, when you say that this film falls in with Woody Allen’s other films in terms of style and voice. I suppose I cannot entirely disagree with this reading of the film, because Allen’s sarcastic writing style and intellectual humor are obvious in the script. However, the visual style of the film, its plot-driven nature, and the casting decisions do not come off as ironic to me. Sure, people can, and should, analyze different aspects of the film, but it seems to me that many of the Hollywood-esque aspects of film are lacking in deeper meaning.
ReplyDeleteSome of the ideas we discussed in class were interesting, especially considering the filmmakers that Allen decided to include within the film, and perhaps those aspects have some hidden commentary on film. The extended beginning, composed of about five minutes worth of establishing shots, however, was just reminiscent of Manhattan to me. In addition, the plot’s fantastic nature and prominent role in the film is similar to the plot of A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy. The similarities between Midnight in Paris and Allen's other films (which seem to contain more of a message and true Woody Allen style) make this film seem like just an empty Hollywood film.
But Allen’s film that offers the best comparison to Midnight in Paris would have to be The Purple Rose of Cairo. Upon analysis, the amazing, unbelievable plot is a cautionary tale about becoming too invested in Hollywood film and the ideals it portrays. So if the deeper message in Midnight in Paris is that one should not get caught up in the illusion of cinema (especially Hollywood cinema), then there are two questions that are left unanswered. Why would Allen choose to deliver the same message once again? And secondly, why would Allen choose to use a Hollywood film as the vehicle for his anti-Hollywood, illusory film statement?
Though I am a huge fan of Woody Allen’s body of work, I did not feel like this film embodied his visual style or message. For me, this film could be likened to my opinion on Owen Wilson’s performance in the role of Gil: It is a poor imitation of something Woody Allen might do, but lacked the depth necessary to make it as good as the real thing.
Who posted this comment? I cannot tell.
ReplyDelete