Upon an initial screening, Midnight in Paris can be taken as a typical, run of the mill romantic comedy judging by its usage of conventions featured in almost every film within the genre. It has all the key elements: an attractive couple, a charming main character, a picturesque setting, romance, and witty humor (the only thing it was missing was the slightly overweight, less handsome yet funnier best friend). But to those of us who are familiar with the works of Woody Allen, and those of us who hold Allen in high regard, well, we expect some more depth.
This film is no exception to Woody Allen's standards as a writer/director. I must say that I do not believe our director sold out in any way when it came to making Midnight in Paris. I see it all as a play on the assumptions we have with "rom-coms", and a jab at Hollywood, while simultaneously winking at his fans. The film appears to be quite straightforward at times, but when you really think about it, Midnight in Paris does not flow in the same way that Hollywood films do, and that is certainly intentional.
Let's look at a few examples...
I'll begin with the opening montage of images from all across Paris. Ask yourself... Would a Hollywood movie do this? I didn't think so. Many people, critics especially, would argue that this opening scene was dragged out, but I strongly disagree. Woody Allen's films always seem to romanticize the city in which it takes place. And since we were stepping into Paris, I believe it was completely necessary and appropriate for this opening to be as long as it was to fully establish the setting. This intro goes on to have even more significance when we see that Gil has such a love for the city, wanting to "walk through Paris in the rain". The shots of the city during a downpour foreshadow this aspect of Gil's personality.
Later in the film, another moment arises where I believe Woody Allen wants the audience to question Hollywood and its common themes. The moment in which Gertrude Stein brings Inez's affair to Gil's attention is quite un-Hollywood. Usually, this type of plot action or character realization spurs dramatic soundtrack-infused tornadoes of action, as obvious climaxes in Hollywood movies. In midnight in Paris, this moment simply just happens, and the break up scene is much more concise and less dramatic than one would anticipate. Moments such as these call certain assumptions into question, and I think that was definitely part of Allen's vision for Midnight in Paris.
I agree with you Thomas when you point to these 2 scenes as being un-Hollywood, at least on the face of it. Yet, while the initial "setting" scene languors far to long for Hollywood, it nevertheless harkens back to a 50's classic, "April in Paris" - if, for no other reason, the title.(And the more I think about it- Allen intended this.) But is this really a violation of Hollywood norms for this film? Isn't Allen saying that in addition to being the setting for our story, Paris is also the leading character. So, just as in traditional cinema, Allen needs to spend a little time in the beginning introducing us to him/her?
ReplyDeleteAnd while the second scene might appear to be undramatic, Hollywood would allow this if it wanted us to think that Gil should not be hurt by this, since better things are in store for him, and maybe it is - in the present. After all, most of the time Hollywood allows the viewer to have more knowledge than anyone in the film.
I think you raise some good points.
Thanks