Midnight in Paris (2011)- Woody Allen

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work...I want to achieve it through not dying. - Woody Allen

Ahhhh, Woody Allen. What can I say about this iconic American director that hasn't already been said? I begin my blog with thoughts on his most recent film, Midnight in Paris.



Initial reaction: After all the hype surrounding its release, I was really looking forward to seeing this movie for the first time. After the viewing, I was pleasantly surprised. As a previous English major, I had a fun time traveling back in time and allowing Woody Allen to introduce me to his version of famous authors and artists.

Haven't seen it? You can find the IMDb summary here.

Question I posed for this screening: What can film do that other mediums cannot? 

Since this is my first post about a film, I thought this was a pretty important question to answer right off the bat, using a particular movie as an example. Since this movie talks about artists in all media, this story could have also been told in a book, a series of short stories, paintings, etc. But why film? Why a visual medium? Obviously, I will not be able to answer such a large question fully, but I've pulled out a few moments that struck me as particularly beautiful to perhaps head toward an answer.

***

I was really struck by Woody Allen's ability to highlight film's ability to travel time. So, below I will focus on moments of time traveling that were striking.

Moment 1. Gil, a struggling writer from present day, has a conversation with author Ernest Hemingway

Why this is striking:

For one, film is the only medium that would allow characters from different times to have an active conversation. It is a dynamic medium that shows action in real time. 

A painting could show 2 characters from a different time together, but it would be static. We could assume as viewers that the conversation presented in the painting consisted of more than just the one moment we are shown, but we would have to use our imagination as to what it looked like.

Sound or music could reproduce what their conversation might sound like, but you would not be 

able to see them having the conversation. Non-verbal body language, the setting, the palpable mood felt, etc. are all things that would be lost and would have to be imagined by the listener. 

Literature could document the possible dialogue between them, but again would not be visual. I think in this instance, we would have to use our imagination the most, as the only thing we would be given would be the actual dialogue.

I also found Corey Stoll's performance as the notoriously temperamental author highly entertaining, which of course just makes the whole scene great.

Moment 2. Gil and Adriana, a muse for many of the artists in the film, dance in the 1890s

Why this is striking:

This is such a lovely scene that really touched something for me. Film allows the characters to actively interact in a space that features 3 different eras at the same time- the 1890s, the 1920s (or so), and present day. Rather than the characters simply telling us how wonderful the past was, we are shown the past. Not only are we then able to visually compare the 3 eras, but it's visually stunning.

A painting could show the 2 characters (from 2 different eras) dancing in a completely different era, but again, it would be static. In order to achieve a similar effect or similar idea, there may need to be a series of paintings or pictures. And even then...static.

Sound or music could reproduce the music and noises heard, but nothing else.

Literature could describe the scene, but again, much imagination would be needed to envision the scene. 

***
What I should note here is that I am in no way downplaying the value or beauty of other mediums, such as paintings, music, and literature. Obviously, each and every one, listed here or not, has a value and place for depicting certain events, situations, emotions, parts of life.

I suppose a question that I find always running through my mind with any kind of art is: Why did the artist decide to present the material this way? Why did they make the decisions they did?

In the instance of moviemaking, the director made the decision to present a story in the dynamic, visual form of film. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a decision I appreciate more than I can say.

***
Rating: I liked it! While it is a bit different from Woody Allen's other movies, the story is entertaining and it's lovely visually. This movie received a lot of flak when it was released for being "superficial," many people wondering if Allen had lost what made him so great to begin with. But I'm not so sure...I think this movie is a lot deeper than many gave it credit for. I'll give just one example for you to consider...

Woody Allen

Let's take Allen's decision to cast Owen Wilson as the protagonist and lead actor. Wilson's reputation as an actor is that of leading man of romantic comedies and silly/stupid humor (here I'm thinking Meet the Fockers, Wedding Crashers, You, Me, and Dupree, etc.). His characters are often pretty one-dimensional, not demonstrating much depth past a desire to "get the girl" at the end. But from what has been divulged about his personal life, he is very much a different person than the characters he has played. For instance, Wilson attempted suicide in 2007. This seemingly happy-go-lucky leading man clearly had his own demons. All of these factors- both his on-screen persona as well as what we know about his personal life- affect the way that we as viewers would receive him in this role. And don't think for one moment that a director as fabulous as Allen isn't acutely aware of that.

Obviously, I believe there are many more examples that I could go on and on about to show you why I think this movie is deserving of a deeper, more serious look. But whether you agree with me or not, I definitely believe it's a movie worth seeing.