Alright, I guess I'm not ready to quit yet. One more post. Only because I have the day off today.
At this point I figure that everyone else is either ignoring us because they haven't seen Midnight or ignoring us because they don't care. What I can't figure out is why Ben has been so silent. Where are you, Ben? Stick up for your "delightful" movie experience already! (although now I'm almost all argued out and ready to drop Midnight. Almost...)
---
You're right, Jason.
I meant "moral truth that is important to John."
Maybe.
I think I meant "all moral truth."
And I think that Midnight fails to deliver the goods. What little positive statement it may be making is forfeit by how it gets there.
Does it have a "moral?" (and this isn't quite what I mean by moral truth, but let's go with it.)
Sure. But, it's also got a tidy array of bullshit caricatures as the framework supporting it, draining whatever truth there is right out to the gutter.
"Learn to be happy where you are and with what you have"
Is that really the message of this movie? By the end of the film, the protagonist has abandoned his fiance, abandoned his career, and abandoned his home in favor of chasing a dream. He does not learn to be happy where he was or with what he had. You're right about the fact that this being a Woody Allen movie filters the way I see some of this, but it's very different than how you see it. I see a man who has left many lovers to go on to the next (often younger) lover, causing a lot of pain and heartache. I see him justifying what an asshole he is by making a movie in which everyone but the main character is a constant irritation. The audience "goes along for the ride" with Gil and is directed to sympathize with him, not with anyone else.
"Midnight in Paris challenges those of us who tend towards romantic or nostalgic idealism to acknowledge that there is potential for greatness and mediocrity in any age (and any situation?) and that running away from the present does not let you escape your own restlessness and dissatisfaction."
Okay, but this is a really shallow insight.
Also, like I pointed out above, I think that you're framing things wrongly here. Gil completely changes his present in order to be happy with it. He is revived by the Spirit of the '20s and decides to live by that Spirit in the present rather than live the same stifling way that he has been. He's not saved by escaping nostalgia. It is nostalgia that saves him.
"That it comes from Woody Allen, who is practically the king when it comes to dissatisfied and restless characters in his films, makes it that much more powerful a message. When Buddha says, "Be at peace," I say, "Easy for you to say." But when Woody Allen says, "Be at peace," I think, "This man knows what it's like to not be at peace." And I listen a lot more intently."
Again, I'm with you here, but I have to part company in the final analysis. It's partly because it's Woody Allen that I'm very skeptical when the protagonist finds happiness by leaving his fiance and walking off into the sunset (okay, the rain) with a pretty young girl. How long will it take before he realizes that all they have in common is sex and Cole Porter records? Maybe it'll take another trip back to the '20s to set him straight so that he can come back to the present and find another girl.
It's not about being at peace. It's precisely about finding the way forward through restlessness and dissatisfaction. Which may or may not be a fine conclusion. I just don't like how he gets there.
No comments:
Post a Comment