I will admit, the only other Woody Allen film I’ve ever
watched is Vicky Cristina Barcelona, and
I could not pretend to have an opinion on his quirkiness or his “regular”
style. Many critics hailed Midnight In
Paris as one of his hits, and it’s well known that the French adore this
film. Why wouldn’t they? Paris is portrayed in its most glorious and romantic –
the arts and rich history are given great attention, the plot is light and
funny – and for us general American audiences, the familiar faces as Owen
Wilson and Rachel McAdams push the Allen name into an approachable category.
As beautiful and popular as the film has been, I do not
think its main purpose was simply toward commercial or Academy success. The
theme of disillusion pervades this film in the characters and setting of the
present and past. The numerous American authors featured in this film are known
as the Lost Generation, a term famously coined by Gertrude Stein herself. These
Americans felt that life after WWI was horrifying, the moral guidelines that
Americans followed in fighting the war didn’t return blessings, and that
America was becoming ever more materialistic and unspiritual. This cohort of
authors lived in Paris in the 20s for it offered entertainment and a safe
ground for idealism. The nostalgic parts of the film used darker and warmer
colors, as well as the night life and its inherent decadence, to render a most
romantic and accepting picture of Paris. Paris seemed perfect for these
literary geniuses and those artists beginning to form their ideas. And Gil
himself, who many critics identified as the “Woody surrogate” for his “idealization
of the past, of the Paris that represented art and life at their fullest” which
Allen shared, also undergoes disillusionment on several levels (Travers). From
the very start of the film, he expresses a desire to escape his Hollywood
writer life, and questions how one should live. He is very similar in this way
to the Lost Generation who explorer the meaning of life and believing Paris
offers answers. When Gil went with Adriana to an even earlier Golden Age, he
decides that the fantasy in returning to a resplendent past is futile and
cyclical.
Is his decision to start anew in Paris
just another deception, fantasy, escape? The film concludes in a traditional
Hollywood way, leaving us a beautiful and seemingly well rounded ending. But
here is where I think the most important exposure comes in. The gorgeous opening
scene is almost four minutes long, and probably what leads many to call this
film Allen’s love letter to Paris. I have never been to Paris, and in many
films Paris is definitely portrayed similarly. But from the assertions of those
who have visited, it appears that the weather in Paris is hardly ever so
obliging. Isn’t this an obvious sign that the rest of the film, in all its
glamor and excitement, is just a continuation of this glossy, colorful edited
photography? I had already pointed out that the past Paris is intentionally brilliantly
portrayed as well. Paris is the best city in the world because the Lost
Generation believed it to be, because Gil believes it to be, and now these
editing techniques lead us in that direction as well. The film is a combination
of reality and fantasy featuring both Gil’s modern life and his travels to the
past, and I think while the opening scene could be a red herring and lead us to
be skeptical of the intentions of the filmmaker and the author’s plot and deceit
within, does that actually mean we couldn’t use film as a means to experience
escape and illusion?
I think you pose an interesting argument in your assertion that film could be just another form of escapism, in the same way the time travel is in Midnight in Paris. This is not addressed directly in the film, as it seems (at least on the surface) more interested in comparing how cultures view their own time period, and how previous eras are looked back as “Golden Ages.” A main function of your argument hinges on the interpretation of the opening montage of Paris, and while I may not necessarily have a counter-argument, I would nevertheless like to entertain alternate interpretations.
ReplyDeleteThere is the surface level reading of the opening montage, in which it is merely an overindulgent view of Paris. It is possible that Allen could be consumed with Paris’ beauty, and want to share it with the world in a way not seen in most Hollywood films (I would haphazardly argue that most Hollywood films would use either the Eiffel Tower or the Louvre as an establishing shot for Paris, then cut back to the action). An extrapolation of this line of thinking is that Woody Allen is showing all of Paris’ beauty in order to convince the audience that they are living in a Golden Age, but miss this fact because they do not take enough time to truly appreciate their surroundings. This interpretation would indicate that Allen is reinforcing the overall message of the film from the opening shots until Gil’s final monologue. It is always impossible to guess intention, but I would like to think that this is a bit simplistic of an extremely intelligent director such as Allen, and thus I probably do not put much weight in this line of thinking.
Another train of thought one could take from the opening montage is that it is part of a subtle trick Woody Allen is playing on the audience. There are multiple instances in the film dealing with characters wanting to go to live elsewhere; the most screen time is given to those wanting to go to a different time. However, it must not be missed the Gil wants to move to Paris; this is a geographic change. What if the realizations Gil comes to concerning each generation thinking a previous era was the true Golden Age can be applied to people living in one part of the world viewing another city as a “Golden City” (I mean that as a geographical equivalent of a Golden Age)? This would then make the opening montage a reinforcement to the audience that Paris is such a beautiful and wonderful city, and thus the “Golden City” in this example. Allen could be attempting to trick the audience into feeling the same feelings as that of the character Gil and Adriana in the subtlest of ways. While my previous interpretation of the opening montage was probably too simplistic, the latter is probably too much conjecture. That being said, I feel both could be argued, as the opening montage is certainly more than a simple postcard-look at Paris.
-PA