“The past is always carried to the present by small things”- Ondaatje succinctly suggests in one of his remarkable works, Divisadero. It is quite truly so, if someone starts to recreate the past through some petty vestiges and regard the present as an ‘insurmountable problem’. Such is the opinion of the protagonist of Midnight in Paris, Gil Pender whereas his idols-turned-friends of past like Bunuel, Dali and the others have their own voice of arts, they are into.
The film winds up when Gil, an American screenwriter comes to visit Paris, his Utopia of artistic manifestation with his fiancée Inez and her parents. They incidentally come across Inez’s friend Paul and Gil immediately considers him to be a pseudo-intellectual fellow who tries to prove his authority over art. Being aware of Gil’s obsession about Paris is 1920s Paul disregards it as a romantic fallacy, ‘golden-age thinking’. The conflict starts to brew quite subtly as in every possible occasion irrespective of having sufficient knowledge over the subject or not Gil attempts to counterpoint Paul. Later on, it becomes utmost tangible how this couple lacks compatibility due to lack of understanding each other’s stand; while Inez loves to enjoy the weekend with her friends, go for a dance with Paul, Gil finds it rather romantic to explore the Paris in midnight, in rain and in the aura of the past. Thus in one night after being drunk an antique car pulls him up and thereby he journeys back to the past and meets the Fitzgerald’s, Ernest Hemmingway et al. The next morning though returns back in 2010, this stupefying series continues thereon. In his nocturnal escapade he meets authors, critic, painter, musicians, film-maker who once chose on their volition to practise ‘exile’ or used to live in Paris to vent their artistic instinct. He meets Picasso, his mistress Adriana, Bunuel, Dali, Eliot and many others. He submits his novel for criticism to Gertrude Stein, the famous art-critic.
Gradually, he comes to feel that he is not only in adoration with the age or its people but also in love with Adriana. His predicament intensifies as he is already betrothed to another woman from present but his love for the bygone days instigates his romantic emotions to be employed elsewhere, for another woman. Coming across a written book by Adriana, and getting it translated by a local guide, Gil suddenly in one morning comes to know that Adriana is also in love with him for his ‘unassuming’ personality which is ‘interesting in a lost way’. Making up his mind to propose her, Gil in the penultimate scene of the film, coming across the discourse of the people at “La Belle Époque” finds that even the members of this golden age are not satisfied with the time they live in and believe renaissance to be the ideal era. Adriana who also journeyed forward to meet Gil from 1890s to 1920s refuses to be there for the same reason and chose to be in her age. Much to his dismay Gil at last realizes how it is always better to live in the present despite its intricacies, dissatisfactions and odious life style. The film ends in an optimistic stand, Gil exploring the Paris in midnight, in rain, with Gabrielle, the girl from a curio-shop, who also shares some similar taste with him.
Now, quite a number of things are to be pondered upon in the entire film. The crux of the conflict is familiar to anyone, interested in art and literature. But it is the treatment that draws considerable applause. The film has a lot of going for it as far the artistic quest for beauty, dreaming of the past and practising ‘exile’, as propounded by Joyce, but here, in one’s imaginary world are concerned. The unity of time is dexterously effaced and the politics of nostalgia is handled rather on a positive note. And this is particularly achieved by not only journeying back to the past without any tangible mechanism while being present with the acquaintances of the ‘present’, but also by the accurate prefabricated (or real?) sets, used in the film. The entire ambience exudes a French-feeling whenever the protagonist meets the people from the past, comes across their verbal exchanges, sometimes in French as well. This is handled quite sincerely as even the unawareness of French ethos does not hinder one’s enjoyment of the movie up to the hilt. The film effortlessly builds up a genial rapport between an aspiring creator and his idols and masters, with the identical discourses which in terms edifies him.
Owen Wilson is appropriate as bewildered Gil Pender, the artist and the lover. So is Marion Cotillard as Adriana. All the side characters, including the men of letters, proximate to their originality appropriately by their gestures, glances and intonation. Nothing can be said more about the director Woody Allen. He is an engaging story-teller, and this is again proved by his brilliant screenplay of the film. Music also accords with the time, age and people as it is that of pure classic and opera.
Still Midnight in Paris fails to evoke an ecstatic response due to some peccadilloes. The story is told in a quiet and constrained manner which the script demands but it is for this reason, the climax lacks a heightened speculation and is rather predictable. The treatment, though very novel, but at last has very little to offer. It is because of the theme is rather familiar, though rarely expressed in a full-length movie. Finally, I doubt had Adriana not refused to live in 1920s would it have been really possible for Gil to realize the wise truth? Love here accentuates an epiphany, but in the last scene we find him to set out probably in a new journey with another girl. His life is therefore a constant shift from one relationship to another; it marks him as a disoriented fellow but at the same time shows how pathetic character he is, torn between human relationship and artistic persuasion.
Rating (out of 10)
Acting- 6
Script -6.5,
Direction- 6.5
Music- 6
Technique -7
Overall- 6.5 (3/5)
No comments:
Post a Comment