Midnight in Paris (B or 3/4 stars)
'Midnight in Paris' (written & directed by Woody Allen) is a nice little movie. Pleasant. Sweet. I just wasn't taken with it as much as I wanted to be. Gil & Inez (Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams) are taking a pre-wedding vacation in Paris; freeloading off of her snobbish parents (Kurt Fuller, Mimi Kennedy). It doesn't take long for us to realize that Gil & Inez are mismatched (in fact, I find it to be a detrimental component of the script). Gil, despite being a Hollywood screenwriter, dreams of living a bohemian lifestyle in magical Paris. He wants to move there & finish his novel - but Inez thinks he's insane. One fateful night, instead of going out dancing with Inez & her pompous friend, Paul (Michael Sheen), Gil chooses to wander the streets of Paris.
Right after midnight, an old-fashioned car pulls up along the curb & a group of party-goers ask him to come in. He then finds himself transported to the 1920's - where he keeps company with the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston, so good in Thor), his wife, Zelda (Alison Pill), Ernest Hemmingway (Corey Stoll, a real hoot), Gertrude Stein (the wonderful Kathy Bates), Salvador Dali (Adrien Brody), & the captivating Adriana (Marion Cotillard). Before morning approaches, Gil finds himself placed back in 2011. But it's not long before he's hailing that old-fashioned car again for more nostalgic trips back to the past.
'Midnight in Paris' is light & airy. A faerie tale fantasy. I liked the charming ending. It was actually the first half hour that really wasn't doing anything for me. Also, it may sound simplistic to say, "Well, the whole movie is repetitive: Gil meets a historical icon & is bemused. The next day, he tries to convince his vile fiancee of what goes on with him at night. But all she & her miserable parents do is berate him. Gil meets another historical icon at night & is bemused. He then gets berated by his fiancee & future in-laws during daytime. Gil meets another icon at night." --- but this was ebb & flow of the film. There are pleasures to be found in each 1920's encounter. But it gets a tad predictable. And the magic of the 1st night wears off, a bit.
Still, I really enjoyed any scene with Gil & Adriana. But that's because Marion Cotillard is a world class actress and is as captivating as the character she plays. Who wouldn't want to be with her (whether she was in the present, the 1920's or the Belle Epoque era - which she fantasizes of being in)? Cotillard/Adriana is luminous. Every other actor playing an icon from the 20's is fun. Everyone is overacting (which is acceptable in this plot). Everyone is saying things that you would think they would say in their time & place. But most of their schtick felt incidental & paper-thin. Again, I KNOW it's supposed to. That's the conceit of the whole film (everything is a hazy, midnight dream/fantasy of Gil's). I guess I just didn't always lock into Gil's brainwaves during his dreams.
Visually, 'Midnight in Paris' is a beauty. The opening montage (which goes on a touch too long) fills us with idealistic images of Parisian tourist spots during the course of one day (and in rain, which Gil loves). Darius Khondji's evocative cinematography allows us to enjoy Gil's vision of Paris almost as much as he does. The soft lensing of the camera, especially in those 1920's scenes, made me feel warm & fuzzy inside. I also liked the sets (antique cars, interiors) & the costumes (flapper-style dresses, men's suits). It all felt extremely authentic; which aided the fantasy sequences, perfectly.
Overall, 'MiP' is one of those films where I have to weigh the great with the not-so-great. I liked most of the 1920's scenes. But I really couldn't care all that much for the characters in the story. Gil's Woody Allen-esque fumbling/neuroses keep him at a distance, for me. Though Inez & her parents are meant to be vile people, that doesn't mean I have to care about not liking them. And the 1920's characters only exist within Gil's idealized fantasy. There's little to hold onto there, as well. And yet, all that said, I did like what Woody Allen has to say about bygone eras & nostalgia ...
Is a life different from your own ... really better? Were things all that great for people AS they lived in previous eras? I'm sure we've all pondered them a million times. I know I have often wondered what was it like in, say, 1893? What would I be like in 1964? What would my hobbies have been in 1921? How would I have behaved in 1955? By the end of the film, Allen's philosophical answer is: be content with the time that you live in. Nostalgia can only take you so far. Fantasize about a life different than your own if you want - but the idea that life was better back then is an illusion. There's no way to know.
Right after midnight, an old-fashioned car pulls up along the curb & a group of party-goers ask him to come in. He then finds himself transported to the 1920's - where he keeps company with the likes of F. Scott Fitzgerald (Tom Hiddleston, so good in Thor), his wife, Zelda (Alison Pill), Ernest Hemmingway (Corey Stoll, a real hoot), Gertrude Stein (the wonderful Kathy Bates), Salvador Dali (Adrien Brody), & the captivating Adriana (Marion Cotillard). Before morning approaches, Gil finds himself placed back in 2011. But it's not long before he's hailing that old-fashioned car again for more nostalgic trips back to the past.
'Midnight in Paris' is light & airy. A faerie tale fantasy. I liked the charming ending. It was actually the first half hour that really wasn't doing anything for me. Also, it may sound simplistic to say, "Well, the whole movie is repetitive: Gil meets a historical icon & is bemused. The next day, he tries to convince his vile fiancee of what goes on with him at night. But all she & her miserable parents do is berate him. Gil meets another historical icon at night & is bemused. He then gets berated by his fiancee & future in-laws during daytime. Gil meets another icon at night." --- but this was ebb & flow of the film. There are pleasures to be found in each 1920's encounter. But it gets a tad predictable. And the magic of the 1st night wears off, a bit.
Still, I really enjoyed any scene with Gil & Adriana. But that's because Marion Cotillard is a world class actress and is as captivating as the character she plays. Who wouldn't want to be with her (whether she was in the present, the 1920's or the Belle Epoque era - which she fantasizes of being in)? Cotillard/Adriana is luminous. Every other actor playing an icon from the 20's is fun. Everyone is overacting (which is acceptable in this plot). Everyone is saying things that you would think they would say in their time & place. But most of their schtick felt incidental & paper-thin. Again, I KNOW it's supposed to. That's the conceit of the whole film (everything is a hazy, midnight dream/fantasy of Gil's). I guess I just didn't always lock into Gil's brainwaves during his dreams.
Visually, 'Midnight in Paris' is a beauty. The opening montage (which goes on a touch too long) fills us with idealistic images of Parisian tourist spots during the course of one day (and in rain, which Gil loves). Darius Khondji's evocative cinematography allows us to enjoy Gil's vision of Paris almost as much as he does. The soft lensing of the camera, especially in those 1920's scenes, made me feel warm & fuzzy inside. I also liked the sets (antique cars, interiors) & the costumes (flapper-style dresses, men's suits). It all felt extremely authentic; which aided the fantasy sequences, perfectly.
Overall, 'MiP' is one of those films where I have to weigh the great with the not-so-great. I liked most of the 1920's scenes. But I really couldn't care all that much for the characters in the story. Gil's Woody Allen-esque fumbling/neuroses keep him at a distance, for me. Though Inez & her parents are meant to be vile people, that doesn't mean I have to care about not liking them. And the 1920's characters only exist within Gil's idealized fantasy. There's little to hold onto there, as well. And yet, all that said, I did like what Woody Allen has to say about bygone eras & nostalgia ...
Is a life different from your own ... really better? Were things all that great for people AS they lived in previous eras? I'm sure we've all pondered them a million times. I know I have often wondered what was it like in, say, 1893? What would I be like in 1964? What would my hobbies have been in 1921? How would I have behaved in 1955? By the end of the film, Allen's philosophical answer is: be content with the time that you live in. Nostalgia can only take you so far. Fantasize about a life different than your own if you want - but the idea that life was better back then is an illusion. There's no way to know.