THE SORRY TALE OF "BLUE JASMINE"

There were a lot of things, and I do mean a LOT of things that recommended this film to me. I’m a massive fan of Woody Allen. I’m a massive fan of Kate Blanchette. Blue Jasmine was on Quentin Tarantino’s list of faves for 2013 (oh come on, you know I’m a fangirl. Yes you do). So, yeah. When it came as an option on the in-flight entertainment to Japan, I couldn’t really say no, could I?

Now, honestly, at first glance I failed to see how anyone could dislike this film in any way shape of form. But then, I asked my Mom what she thought of it and she said that the character Jasmine annoyed her so much she couldn’t get more than half way through the film and just turned it off. I strongly disapprove of this kind of thing but it forced me to try and think of the whole affair a tad more objectively and I had to admit I can see where she was coming from even though I don’t agree. At the end of the day Woody Allen’s work is rather a niche affair which you generally either love or hate and this film is virtually marinated in his style - which is good news for any of the fans. Coupled with some rather superb acting from Cate Blanchette – I had been saying she would be up for the Oscar® right from the start – the result is a film that is particularly easy on the eye.

Jasmine (Cate Blanchette) is going through a bit of a tough patch. There was a time not so long ago she could have claimed to have it all. A husband rich enough to fund all her shopping trips and brunches, a like-minded set of socialite friends in New York, a massive, luxurious house and no reason whatsoever to work. However all good things must come to an end and Jasmine’s dream life crumbles down around her ears one day (I’ll let you discover the how and why of it in the film) and she is faced with the rather terrifying prospect of going out into the real world, standing on her own two feet  and earning her daily bread. This is how Jasmine lands on the doorstep of her estranged sister Ginger in San Francisco. Ginger’s life is a million miles away from Jasmine’s and old resentments and feuds boil beneath the genial surface but family is family and Jasmine literally has nowhere else to go. So starts a very uneasy partnership between the two sisters… Here’s hoping Jasmine adapts to real life quickly. Like, before she pushes Ginger to do something they would both regret…

Now, you know the type of comedy where an  alien (or two) from a very advanced technological era come to earth and flail around trying to adapt to the “backwards” fittings and fixtures? Yeah, this is basically the same type of comedy. And I must admit, I’m kind of surprised I like it so much because I never liked that kind of comedy. Even when Star Trek did it. I can totally see why people might get annoyed with the storyline too incidentally. Because the “backwards fixtures and fittings” in the film are basically… Yeah you got it. Our lives. Day to day, normal lives. Ok so Ginger works in a supermarket bagging groceries – just to underline the contrast with Jasmine’s high flier New York lifestyle- but basically she is a million miles away from Mimozas and brunch every Saturday, pretty much like the rest of us. The film is a comedy about how hard it would be for the rich to adapt to our lives. And believe me, it makes for an annoying watch through and through.

But it does raise some rather important points as well. Not least about the way the star culture and society fills us with all the wrong aspirations about the importance of glamour and material things as opposed to the stuff in life that really and truly matters. Jasmine is, in reality, almost completely unqualified. She never finished college and she never worked. So any job she is actually qualified to get is something not unlike her sisters but of course she sneers at that. Any job she can get she doesn’t last in; it’s all “far too menial” she needs to “use her talents”, ah but what are these talents if she has any at all?  Jasmine has clearly not. She is just sure she has them and she must do “great things”. So what the film is, in reality, doing through Jasmine is reminding us gently that the quest for our own “perfect lives” should really begin from a quest within ourselves. We must know ourselves and fully understand what is really important in life. If we need to develop to get to the point we wish to be at in life, we must accept that with good grace and serenity. And above all we must invest into all those things in life that money cannot buy: Love, friendship, family…

Now all these are valid lessons but of course they are given through the means of an incredibly annoying snob (and her annoyingness is a testimony to Blanchette’s acting prowess if you think about it) constantly berating a life very similar to your own. So it takes an effort to get passed that bit and look to the more spiritual lesson of the film. It is a fable; it is a “don’t be like her” cautionary tale for both the rich and the poor – if you see what I mean. And once you have put enough distance between yourself and the film and have begun to truly appreciate stuff like what a brilliant job Blanchette is doing with the part, I am confident you will enjoy it as much as I did. 

THE ART AND THE MAGIC OF "MIDNIGHT IN PARIS"

Well, this is definitely a little number that has me scratching my head. Oh don’t get me wrong, not in a bad way. The film is amazing. It’s just that as I actually am such a fan of Woody Allen, I’m not entirely sure why I put off watching this for so darn long. I better not take this long getting round to watch Blue Jasmine…  But I digress… Let’s get this show back on track girls and boys, because this film has a lot to say for itself (well, what did you expect, it is Woody Allen) and we’d better get started talking about it…

Gil (Owen Wilson) and Inez ( Rachel McAdams) are an engaged couple who have tagged along to Paris with Inez’s father and mother who are on a business trip. For Inez, this is a perfect moment to select furniture for their future Malibu home. For Gil, a screenwriter who desperately wants to “try his hand at real literature” Paris is almost a pilgrimage. While Inez is determined to “stay a tourist”, Gil wants to wander the streets of Paris, sit at the cafes where Hemmingway and Picasso conversed and soak up the atmosphere. And I mean of course Paris is beautiful, but it is not Paris at its best. This, according to Gil, is Paris in the ‘20s.  But then again, Gil has so many things he is discontented with in his current existence that it is not surprising he dreams of an idealised past.  Things however, take a turn for the surreal when one night, when Gil is taking a slightly tipsy walk through Paris by himself, he actually finds a way back into the ‘20s. As he gets over his disbelief and starts exploring this strange occurrence, Gil begins to think that he may have found the perfect solution to all his problems. He no longer needs to just DREAM of living alongside his idols, he can actually stay in the past and do it! So can Gil, who can barely decide where to live in Los Angeles actually make the decision to uproot and live in a completely different era? And more importantly, is this actually the solution to his problems?

Actually this is a really good follow-up to “Now You See Me”  in one sense. Because when you read through the credits, you are once again absolutely battered with celebrities. But it’s ok you see – firstly the celebrities are in fact mostly little more than cameos (with the notable exception of Marion Cotillard who didn’t make it into the blurb but… I mean watch the film, there’s a reason for that). Throughout the film we closely follow Gil and his story. There is, in fact, something incredibly fitting about the concept of “celebrities playing celebrities”.  It makes it easier for us to get into the mind set of Gil who is literally star-struck, surrounded by every literary influence he has ever had, living and breathing in the flesh. We get a good feeling of the “awe” he feels in their presence  and incidentally I loved the contrast between his “day life” and his “night life” as, especially in the second half of the movie, any exchanges he has with his fiancée and her family are almost exclusively limited to the hotel room. All in all, Midnight in Paris is a sweet, romantic, magical fable that I am very glad I watched indeed.

I mean yes, this is Woody Allen, so the film relies heavily on dialogue. And yes, this is a fable, so there is an “inherent lesson” to be learnt from it. There is even a scene where Owen Wilson “tells us” this lesson at the end. This may seem a tad to didactic to you. Then again, if you’re a fan of Woody Allen, surely you can’t have that many problems with being “talked at” and “lectured”. And credit where it is due, the scene is neither long nor obnoxious.

I remember when this film first came out, a lot of people sort of wrinkled their noses and said “it isn’t like his usual stuff” (Him being Woody Allen). I agree. It is a lot more positive, a lot less “grounded I the harsh and bitter realities of real life” than his usual works. If you are looking for an outlet for that kind of emotion, I would suggest you pass up on this one. This film would go much better with a glass of wine, some chocolates and a few friends – albeit those who can endure films with a LOT of dialogue. 

A TRES FRANÇAIS JOURNEY TO ADULTHOOD : "PARIS – MANHATTAN"

Ok. I need to warn you on this French film coming up. And this one is no exception in any way possible. Oh, it’s a fine specimen of its kind, don’t get me wrong. But it’s a typical French film through and through, right down to the cliché of the not very handsome and slightly large (ehm) older gent and the beautiful young woman forming a couple. And this last one would have made a tad bit more sense to me if the director was a man – but in fact it is a woman. Let’s give her her due; it is her first feature film but still. Even if you are mastering the rules just to be able to break them later, you stick up for your side a bit more, no? But anyway. Let’s cut to the storyline. I’ll gripe about the whole thing at the end of  post.

So, meet Amy. In her very common or garden family, she is always the odd one out. She is a great fan of Woody Allen – and in fact all things cinema – and has defiantly been herself in the face of pressure from every side to conform, especially her family. There is the sharp contrast with her sister Helene who is beautiful, socially competent and later on in the film a man-eater of a lawyer. Her family desperately wants Alice married, but Alice just cannot find anyone who quite fits. After all, all the good ones have been snapped up. So she is happy to take over her father’s pharmacy and take solace in Woody Allen. And then, all of a sudden, two things happen. The dashing divorcee Vincent bursts into her life, offering her a dream relationship. Alice is over the moon. But Vincent has a rival in the shape of Victor an inventor in the field of burglar alarms. Can he conquer the moody Alice, and be the “man of her dreams”?

Now, this film is funny, thought provoking and touching in bits. In quite a lot of bits, in fact. But I also have problems with it. And I don’t just mean the whole “couples” thing I mentioned at the beginning. As I have often mentioned before I am very, VERY far from looking like a model myself and I am not saying all on-screen couples should be made up of age-compatible beautiful people. But still. I think French films lean a little too much to one side. Slightly odd.

Then there is the way Alice’s journey is mapped out in the film. Her main aim is to “grow up” once and for all as it were. You know, let go of all childish things and see life as it is. This, apparently, involves quitting being a Woody Allen fan and actually stopping being a movie buff all together. As a movie buff, I am mildly offended by this. Not to say a bit confused because surely the director herself is also a movie buff, or she wouldn’t be, you know, directing films and stuff. I mean, if you think about it,  Ms Lellouche is the queen of all dreamers seeing as she has actually taken up storytelling for a living. Maybe there’s a sensitivity here I’m missing. But apparently to grow up, Alice needs to embrace her compatibility with Victor. Which is fine if they’re happy together. But the problem is, we see absolutely nothing to the effect that she is UNHAPPY with Vincent. In fact, after the briefest of sketches as to how their relationship develops, Vincent vanishes from the scene in rather a forced manner. In fact, Alice can’t even be bothered to break up with him. I mean, don’t even get me started on the fact that Alice’s happiness seems to be entirely based on her settling down with someone. This IS, I grant you, a big factor in happiness sometimes. But sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes people are truly happy as bachelors. And I think we need a few more films that point this fact out..

I mean, as far as romantic comedies go, it’s ok. One is prompted not to think too much when watching this kind of film, because honestly, there often isn’t much to think about. Here, well you really shouldn’t bother. You should just see the film as disposable and move on if you want to enjoy it at all. It’s like rather an old mattress that has some rather uncomfortable lumps in it. It’s quite alright in its function but just… You know.  Remember where to lie yourself down. 

INDULGING OUR INNER CHILDREN: "ANTZ"

I guess the new and high level of technology available to all these days is setting the standard higher for everyone, but I feel that animations especially have really gone their own way. More and more of the greats – I mean the great actors – lend their voices to animated characters, the worlds created in studios, be it Pixar, Dreamworks or Disney are more and more extravagant. It’s time for animations to up their game slightly. It’s like the job market; there comes that time when everyone has a degree, getting a masters is what one has to do to stand out… Now Antz, I felt, combined just enough of everything, to the point that we can say with some confidence that even if they haven’t hit on the ideal combo, they are pretty damn close. The actors are talented, the “new world” is, if not original definitely imaginative and the story is, if not actually completely original, chock full of witticisms that make it easy to forgive any banality on its part. Cheeky is the word I’m looking for. For this little number we are headed off underground; and no less than the great Wood Allen lends his voice to Z, an ant with an attitude problem.
But this is not some kind of typical “Woody Allen” attitude problem. In fact by some standards Z might well be considered a rather usual, typical ant/person. The problem is that he has an attitude at all. He has his own personal outlook on stuff. He doesn’t want to be like the rest of the crowd. He has a mind of his own. This is definitely NOT a good thing if you live in an ant colony. But while Z is yet to figure out how exactly to survive in the colony; he is forced head-first, first into love with possibly the one woman /ant in the anthill that is completely inaccessible to him and then into the heart of an intrigue that may well determine the fates of thousands of his fellow-ants… The question is, will Z be able to get his act together and rescue his relationship AND the colony?
Now as you can see as far as the story goes, this is nothing original. Nothing original AT ALL. However, and I don’t want to point them all out to you one by one but there are some little humorous touches that made me laugh out loud. The thing with animations is that when you do sit down to watch them – with me this is always the case at any rate – you don’t expect anything too complex. That’s why when you see all the small references they seem to count even more. Still, I like the way being competitive has pushed the genre to be better – even though I am no great fan of mass commercialization. In the humor present in this movie I also felt a touch of Woody Allen. It could be psychological of course, simply because I knew Allen was in the film, because fair is fair his name is not stated as one of the writers but still… And the rest of the cast do a pretty fine job too; Sharon Stone is Princess Baka (Z’s love interest) and Christopher Walken (always a steady favorite of mine), Gene Hackman, Sylvester Stallone (of whom I hadn’t heard of in donkey’s years) and Jennifer Lopes (don’t snort, she actually does a good job of it here =) ). In short, the movie achieves nothing completely original, one has to be fair. It is a bit of a classic example. But unlike most “classics” it is has a lot of sensitivity and originality in it, it is obvious that a lot of thought has gone into the making of it and that gives it quality. Class. Highly recommended, chuckles guaranteed.

A LITTLE SOMETHING THAT IS "ARTY": "ZELIG"

Now, Woody Allen is a tricky one. You either love him or you hate him. You either think he is utterly pointless or one of the wittiest directors alive. I am one of the fans. From the smallest thing to the largest thing, Allen’s films are choc-full of stuff. Real stuff you can get your teeth into whether to laugh or cry and as opposed to fluff. You know what I mean. Zelig was another film I “happened across” a while back. I watched it on a rainy morning when I was cramped for time, based solely on the two premises that I was short of time and I definitely wanted fill my “movie a day” quota. Zelig was 80 minutes long, so on it went.
It is, in fact a “mocumentary”. I mean, it is shot in the style of a documentary with “archive footage” and interviews with “experts and witnesses” but it’s really a story starring Woody Allen himself and Mae West. It is the extraordinary tale of Leonard Zelig (Woody Allen) an ordinary Jewish-American citizen with a rather extraordinary ailment… He “turns into” anyone he comes into contact with. Put him near Asian Americans, he starts speaking Chinese, African-Americans, his skin actually changes color. Put him in the same room as a doctor, he’s a doctor, confront him with an iron-monger, what do you know, he’s an ironmonger. The world doesn’t know what to make of him at first. Nobody except a young and beautiful psychiatrist Eudora Fletcher (Mia Farrow)She suspects Zelig’s transformation stems from his abnormally great desire for acceptance and love. Not only that, she also suspects she can cure him. Getting her hands on him, however, is going to be a good deal harder than she first suspected…
Now, I am a pretty smart gal as they go, generally speaking. But this being Woody Allen, I am still not quite sure what EXACTLY the film was poking fun at. But you can see the type, right? I mean, maybe it isn’t even a single type it’s a quality one can attribute to our society in general today. Preferences in society for instance (marked in the film by the public’s adoration of Zelig and their subsequent hatred of him), typical consumer society, we’re so phical these days. We want one thing one moment, two moments later it’s forgotten and we already have a new favorite. We change like “chameleons” with the times and we are led by advertising (let’s face it that IS what advertising is for but still…)
And then there are people like Zelig. On a more personal level they may be afraid to be themselves for fear of rejection (and that alone speaks volumes on where we are today as a whole if individuals are afraid to be themselves) or they may, a bit like Zelig, be rather “underdeveloped” (and this has nothing to do with age) as far as character formation is concerned. Or heck, they may just have an agenda, sucking up to all and sundry, making contacts, working their way up in the world. Whatever the case, you know the type. The people pleaser. Those who are what you want them to be. Who agree with everything you say. And it’s sort of ironic, because people like that are, most often, quite popular. So it’s funny – and well placed – that Zelig becomes the phenomenon of his age at first… A society of chameleons applauding the ultimate chameleon then? Mr. Allen can’t be thinking much of society today… Oh hang on, scratch that… I think we all know the answer to that one… =)

WHATEVER WORKS

Ok, in my lecture today I am going to talk about Woody Allen. (sorry, this is an in-joke between me and my mother). But even if that sentence means nothing to you, it’s as good a beginning as any. What do you make of him? Love him? Hate him? Honestly, he was another director that slid through the cracks where I’m concerned. I discovered him quite by accident when a friend dragged me into Vicky, Christina, Barcelona one day. I left the film with the distinct impression I needed to know more about this. I don’t know as much as I should to date, but I do know enough to tell you I like it =) . Whatever Works is his latest film and I spent a fruitful couple of hours watching it, which is why I now want to share it with you.

Ok, meet Boris Yelnikoff (Larry David. Lord that man looks like Woody Allen!). He is an “almost Nobel nominated” genius. He is a major hypochondriac with a very negative outlook on the world and great contempt for his fellow humans. He has just taken up being a recluse when Mississippi stowaway Melodie St Anne Celestine almost literally stumbles across his path. Despite his better judgment he takes her in and lets her stay for a couple of days. She is naïve, inexperienced and quite beautiful. A very unlikely friendship is now born. Melodie calms Boris and makes him happy, she in turn learns a lot from him (think My Fair Lady, set in the 2000’s with a VERY grumpy Henry Higgins). But things are about to get complicated. Melodie’s parents track her down and land on their doorstep. When it comes to love and such like, Boris’s philosophy is “Whatever works so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody.” Finding something that works, however, may be a tad more complicated than anyone suspected…

Ok, so maybe not Woody Allen’s finest hour - but a definite success. It’s basically a light-hearted romantic comedy, with a goodly dose of Allenesque criticism of the world. Well more specifically of the New York “elite”. The artistes, the great thinkers the “free spirits” (the ones in inverted commas – yes there IS a difference!) all get a goodly poke. Plus, one piece of criticism I heard is that the character of Boris is slightly caricatured, not “realistic”. I mean, Larry David’s acting is fine; it’s not that, it’s the character of Boris himself that is “unbelievable”. But it’s not so “bad” it scars the film. And I mean, we believe the existence of all kinds of unrealistic characters while watching romantic-comedies, this one is really tame considering. And yes, there are a few “tirades” where Mr. Allen definitely wanted to get a message across. I have no problems with messages. And they’re not so long you’ll have to fast forward =) In short, Mr. Allen has made a very intelligent and funny romantic-comedy, with the purpose of entertaining us and voicing a point of view, an opinion. He does this in no uncertain terms, does not sugar-coat it or anything. But in my opinion it’s ok, I mean it isn’t just anyone, it’s Woody Allen we’re talking about his opinions are kinda interesting. And if you disagree, well, you can just fast forward. You’ll enjoy the film anyway.