Blue Jasmine

At the end, I've included the synopsis and embedded the trailer. 

-----

If you’re going to knock Woody Allen films, or at least recent Woody Allen films, there’s the easy criticism that a certain self-satisfaction exudes from some of the characters. They’ve been born into a world of art galleries, yachts, ridiculously expensive bills from restaurants named after French dudes, and they’re not exactly apologizing for it. This isn’t to say that the films don’t have their share of people like you and me (unless you’re one of those people who just loves Louis’ or Paul’s or whatever), but only that there seems to be clear delineation between their world and our world, between us and them.

That’s something that sets Blue Jasmine apart in a way that I hadn’t anticipated. It’s relentless in the way that it deconstructs the myth of the spoiled trophy wife. This isn’t to say that the script is merciless, as there’s a fair bit of compassion for the central character, but I have yet to come up with an Allen film that’s been this focused in its attack on the vapid, out-of-touch isolation of a privileged lifestyle gone wrong.

In many ways, I almost read Blue Jasmine as a response to Allen’s critics, however unconscious and unintentional that might be. There’s almost a marked attempt to use his weaknesses as strengths. In addition to the quasi-microscopic take on privilege that I mentioned before, there’s another thing to contend with.

Cate Blanchett.

Her performance is one of the best I’ve seen her give. What’s more, it’s not only one of the best in an Allen film in recent years, it’s one of the best performances that’s ever graced one of his films. Woody’s penchant for writing female characters that go on to win awards for their actors isn’t exactly a secret, but these tend to be for showier roles that in many cases play toward Woody’s penchant for characterization that feels mannered and somewhat artificial. It’s not that the characters aren’t fabulously written and performed well so much as they feel fabulously written and the performances are trying hard to match that with whatever level of histrionics might be needed.

That’s what really sets Blanchett’s performance apart. She’s walking a razor’s edge between sanity and hysteria, trying desperately to stay on the right side. Other Allen characters talk to themselves because they’re nervous and neurotic and are trying to fill the audience in on things. Jasmine talks to herself because she has to, because her world has been so drastically turned upside down that she’s alone and adrift in a place where she has virtually no frame of reference. It’s that delicate balancing act that elevates her work in Blue Jasmine. It doesn’t come across as showmanship for its own sake so much as the action of a desperate person who has no idea what to do. For example, upon arriving in San Francisco, her sole “career decision” is to take a computer class so that she can “study interior decorating online.” Hey, forward momentum is good, but her affinity for announcing this to whoever asks her anything about her future is so sad in a misguided sort of way. She has no idea how silly she sounds. It breaks your heart a little bit.

Blue Jasmine also features strong work from Sally Hawkins (one of my favorites) and Louis CK. Their flirtation had me saying “awww” over and over again. Woody and Casting Directors Juliet Taylor & Patricia DiCerto deserve kudos for casting someone like Hawkins in such a big role, who’s yet to really break through in the United States. Here’s hoping that this role changes that!

As Woody’s first true dramatic film since 2007’s Cassandra’s Dream, Blue Jasmine succeeds best as a character study. As a whole, I think that some of the performances still feel a bit mannered, which detracts from the sense of realism that I think would have elevated it even further. That said, it’s an engaging look at a truly interesting person and, what’s more, you won’t be completely prepared for where it ends up. If it’s not a great film, Blue Jasmine is still a very good film. This massive Allen fan will take whatever he can get.

4 stars (out of 5)

-----

"After everything in her life falls to pieces, including her marriage to wealthy businessman Hal (Alec Baldwin), elegant New York socialite Jasmine (Cate Blanchett) moves into her sister Ginger’s (Sally Hawkins) modest apartment in San Francisco to try to pull herself back together again." (from the official site)

Midnight In Paris - A Landaulet 184 Is Just As Good As A Pumpkin Coach

Unlike many, I’m the guy who’s enjoyed many of Woody Allen’s recent films. There’s a large number of folks, critics and regular janes alike, who think that, with a few fingers worth of notable exceptions, his post-2000 output has really sucked. While I don’t think that much of his recent work (Vicky Cristina Barcelona aside) is on par with his work in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, there’ve been some really fun pieces in the bunch.

Regardless of one’s position on the post-millenial Woodster, Midnight In Paris is a delight, filled with laughs, beautiful photography, and surprisingly valid insights into human behavior. Per one of his usual aesthetics, the hero is an insecure writer in an unfulfilling relationship. Gil (Owen Wilson) is a successful screenwriter with very real insecurities about his literary ambitions. In Paris with his fiancé, he’s forced to spend time with her unfriendly parents and insufferable friends until a fateful moment at midnight where he finds himself in a random classic car headed for a party (well, a BUNCH of parties) in 1920’s Paris. Suddenly Gil’s spending his days with a bunch of people he likes less and less, and his nights with his literary heroes.

Crazy setup, right? Wrong! Surprisingly, the whole thing really works. Wilson’s “aw, shucks. Me?” schtick is really effective when he starts running into Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Picasso, and Stein. (and a wonderfully funny Adrien Brody taking a turn as Salvador Dali) He can’t believe he’s meeting these people, and we can’t believe our good fortune at getting to see him meet them. Over and over, just when he doesn’t think it can get any better, it does just that.

Additionally, Woody’s dialogue is just the kind of thing you’d expect. What’s wonderful about it (well, one of many such things) is that Woody doesn’t look down on his audience. Will you know who everyone is that Gil meets? Unless you’re smarter than this writer, which is a real possibility, probably not. Despite that, much as in the case of Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall, knowing everything about these people isn’t the point. When Hemingway starts to wax eloquent (as he often does here) about bravery and courage, it’s funny. When he gets drunk and asks Adriana (Marion Cottilard) if she’s ever shot at a charging lion, you laugh out loud.

One of the things I love most about Midnight In Paris is the good, solid look it takes at the human tendency to ignore the good things to be found in the present because of a belief in the glory of an idealized past. See, when we look back, the rose-colored glasses come on. We don’t remember going to bed hungry. We remember that “times were hard, but we were happy!” So, for Gil, the artistic community of Paris in the 20’s is exactly where he thinks he wants to be, but what would he actually do there? Would you really be willing to throw away (because, yes, that’s exactly what you’d be doing) your life if you could go “back?” I think that, a few days after arriving, we’d realize that we were in a place just as crummy as the one we came from, albeit with a far less efficient plumbing system. I’d also argue that we’d want to get back to where we once belonged as soon as possible, but not because of penicillin and Facebook. Nope. We’d want to be there because of the people in our lives that give meaning to the often lousy situations we find ourselves in. I might regret not having valued things in my past like I should have, but if I went back, far too much would be lost in the transfer. Now, if you’re wanting to send me back about 30 years with enough money to do some investing in some little companies called Microsoft and Apple . . . well, then we can talk.

I’m very pleased to see such a strong piece of work after the limp, blandly uninteresting screenhog that was You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger. In many ways, Midnight In Paris is closest to The Purple Rose of Cairo in the Allen canon, but that’s a topic for another day. I did feel that the ending snuck up on me, much like the case of The Social Network. In both cases, I would have happily stayed in my seat for another half hour to see where the story might go. With Midnight In Paris, I felt that there was a bit more that could have been explored in the end, but, in the days since seeing the film, it’s bothered me less and less.

Currently, Midnight In Paris is in limited release, but I’d recommend that you make the effort to seek it out. You won’t be disappointed.

4 stars (out of 5)

Call the doctor, 'cause my jaw hit the floor . . .

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has always had a fiercely independent streak. At the end of the day, it doesn't always matter what success a film's had at the Guild awards or at the Golden Globes. If the Academy likes it, it's in. If not, too bad.

I actually considered getting up to see the nominations this morning. Then, I saw that they were going to be at 5:30 AM. Like that's going to happen. Besides, I don't have cable, so that ruled it out anyway.

The nominations have a TON of things missing, and I'm really surprised that they snubbed some of the films and performances that they did. Here we go . . .

• Not having Clint Eastwood in the Best Actor category is a travesty. He could have WON this award for his performance in Gran Torino. I have never seen him better, and to see him snubbed was not something that I expected, especially considering the fact that he's usually an Academy favorite.


• The Dark Knight gets shut out in the Best Picture race, while The Reader gets in? I have mixed feelings about this, as I like both films. I can take solace in the fact that I called The Reader as my #1 dark horse for the #5 slot. Still, while it's not the single greatest movie made this decade, as some would have you believe, I really thought that the Academy would recognize The Dark Knight.


• What might actually be the biggest surprise is NO SALLY HAWKINS in the Best Actress category!!!!!! She's gotten so much acclaim for her performance in Happy-Go-Lucky, and I think it's ridiculous to think that she missed out on this. I thought with her Globe win that she'd be in for sure, and I even thought that she'd be a major contender.


• Kate Winslet finally ended up in the right category for The Reader, but it's still surprising. That category (Best Actress) is going to be a slugfest this year. In the end, I'm really ok with her not having been nominated for Revolutionary Road, as she gave a better performance in The Reader, which was a MUCH better film.


• Michael Shannon squeeked in in the Supporting Actor category for his role in Revolutionary Road but Leonardo DiCaprio gets shut out in the Best Actor category? I don't get it. Shannon was annoying, gimmicky, and overstated, while DiCaprio created a very complex character. He deserved better.


• No Vicky Cristina Barcelona in the Best Original Screenplay category? You think Woody Allen just MIGHT have deserved the slot that went to WALL-E?


• No Bruce Springsteen in the Best Original Song category? The Academy can nominate up to 5 songs, and they only come up with 3? Unbelievable.


• Slumdog Millionaire gets 10 nominations. 10? Really? You'll probably hear a lot more from me in the future on this, but, while it's a really good film, I don't think all this hoopla is entirely warranted.

Stay tuned to the site over the next several weeks. We'll keep you posted on any breaking developments.