First I must admit that I believe Woody Allen to be great filmmaker. I can't say I've seen many of his films, probably not even his best ones, but the man does have a lot of talent in creating characters and working with actors to bring those characters to life. I loved Blue Jasmine and the absurd-yet-heartbreaking work that Allen and Cate Blanchett accomplished. Allen is also undoubtedly on of the most prolific directors of all time. He has directed forty-four feature length films, and hasn't gone a year without releasing a film since 1982. He has also won four Oscars out of a total of nineteen nominations. Oh, and he turns eighty next year. Regardless of whether or not his films are your cup of tea, you can't deny that Allen is a master storyteller.However...
Perhaps the soon-to-be-octogenarian should reflect upon his last four films and consider a new strategy. In 2011 he gave us Midnight in Paris, which quickly became his highest grossing film and picked up four Oscar nominations including a win for Original Screenplay. His follow up to that was To Rome with Love, a critical and box office flop. But from those ashes rose Blue Jasmine, which received three Oscar nominations, including Cate Blanchett's win for Best Actress. And of course he follows it with this year's Magic in the Moonlight, which sparked no magic with critics or audiences.
I recognize that his long career has featured many duds, but this recent trend leads me to make the following suggestion:
Dear Mr. Allen,
Please stop making bad films every other year.
Why not, instead, take a vacation?
Spend some time at the beach. Join a bridge club.
Take cooking lessons at the local AARP.
And then, when you have a film worth making,
make it good and we will love it.
You're smothering us with your occasional mediocrity.
Maybe take a lesson from Terrence Malick?
Sincerely,
Someone who wants you to make good movies.
Kudos to you if you've stuck with me through the rambling, because now I'm going to share that thought about Magic in the Moonlight that recently occurred to me:
The text of the film is a meta analysis of the film itself.
What does that mean? In the film, Colin Firth plays an illusionist and debunker of fake spirit-mediums who is asked to prove that the charming and beautiful psychic played by Emma Stone is a fraud. Allured by her beauty and charm, Firth's character begins to fall in love with Stone's, and (with the help of his supposed friend) concludes that she can in fact commune with the deceased. He discovers the betrayal and realizes he was correct in assuming that she was a fraud, though he still loves her and is willing to leave his fiancee for her.
One could read the film as asking both critics and general audiences to undergo a journey similar to Firth's. The film is acknowledging that the audience is cautious, too often lured in by Allen just to be disappointed. But with beauty and charm, surely the viewer will be swept away (and maybe the deception will be aided by a few soft critics?). But even if you discover the truth - that the film is a shallow impression of what we expect from Allen - maybe, just maybe you'll still be enraptured by the film's beauty and charm.
Does that happen? Of course not. The film is all facade, even unapologetically so. Colin Firth's character is wooden and unlikeable, and not even the charming and beautiful Emma Stone is able to rescue this huge disappointment of a film.
But what are your thoughts about Allen's latest, or his career as a whole? Should he slow down, or is sitting through Allen's mediocre work the price we have to pay in order to see his great films?
