When the Lumière brothers screened “Arrival of a Train at a Station” for the first time it is said that audience members literally attempted to get out of the way of the oncoming train, which of course was on screen. Movie audiences have come a long way since that showing, and directors know it. Take for example “Gil” being transported by a mysterious old time car back into the 1920’s, no reasoning as to why this is happening is given to the viewers by Director Woody Allen. It is my thinking that Allen chooses to skip this unnecessary explanation, as movie goers of the 21st century we have now been conditioned to understand when we are watching a film that we are in fact doing just that, watching a film. “Midnight in Paris” sticks with the thinking that less is more, fewer details allow what is taking place to just happen almost unnoticed. There is no big lead up to this scene and it is hardly mentioned aside from when it is taking place. We don’t know why it is happening but we just know it is happening. “Gil” is getting in a car and traveling back to the “Golden Age” and doing it so seamlessly that I for one never questioned it. Did I get caught up in the romanticism of Paris and actually believe this as reality? Maybe a little bit, but regardless I did simply understand that I was watching a movie. I do believe that Allen is suggesting that we embrace the illusion of Hollywood filmmaking. Making movies for an audience that can simply take what they are watching as entertainment. I have a hard time looking at this movie as something with a deeper agenda. I think Allen’s use of subtle camera work and almost religious following of “IMR” rules show what he was doing with “Midnight in Paris.” He made a film to be understood as is and taken for what it is, a film. I have this thinking that if he wanted “Midnight in Paris” to be something more we would have known it. Although I enjoyed “Masculine, Fèminine” it was something different, it broke the rules and stretched our understanding of what a film should be. Allen was abstaining from this facet of film making and keeping it simple, simple for the reason of that’s how he wanted it interpreted. Friday, February 3, 2012
Midnight in Paris, Embracing Simplicity
When the Lumière brothers screened “Arrival of a Train at a Station” for the first time it is said that audience members literally attempted to get out of the way of the oncoming train, which of course was on screen. Movie audiences have come a long way since that showing, and directors know it. Take for example “Gil” being transported by a mysterious old time car back into the 1920’s, no reasoning as to why this is happening is given to the viewers by Director Woody Allen. It is my thinking that Allen chooses to skip this unnecessary explanation, as movie goers of the 21st century we have now been conditioned to understand when we are watching a film that we are in fact doing just that, watching a film. “Midnight in Paris” sticks with the thinking that less is more, fewer details allow what is taking place to just happen almost unnoticed. There is no big lead up to this scene and it is hardly mentioned aside from when it is taking place. We don’t know why it is happening but we just know it is happening. “Gil” is getting in a car and traveling back to the “Golden Age” and doing it so seamlessly that I for one never questioned it. Did I get caught up in the romanticism of Paris and actually believe this as reality? Maybe a little bit, but regardless I did simply understand that I was watching a movie. I do believe that Allen is suggesting that we embrace the illusion of Hollywood filmmaking. Making movies for an audience that can simply take what they are watching as entertainment. I have a hard time looking at this movie as something with a deeper agenda. I think Allen’s use of subtle camera work and almost religious following of “IMR” rules show what he was doing with “Midnight in Paris.” He made a film to be understood as is and taken for what it is, a film. I have this thinking that if he wanted “Midnight in Paris” to be something more we would have known it. Although I enjoyed “Masculine, Fèminine” it was something different, it broke the rules and stretched our understanding of what a film should be. Allen was abstaining from this facet of film making and keeping it simple, simple for the reason of that’s how he wanted it interpreted. 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree Jonathan - and I think that perhaps one looses a wonderful lightness of experience by weighing your viewing down, at least with this Allen movie, with a drive for deeper meaning.
ReplyDelete