Women from both sides of the Atlantic have trouble walking away from charming Lothario
Added 11/4/2009
In his early days, after he gave up writing comedies such as 'Bananas' and 'Sleeper', Woody Allen desperately anted to join the ranks of the world's great directors such as Ingmar Bergman and Federico Fellini. He churned out pretentious drivel such as "Interiors" in an attempt to emulate his beloved Bergman but deep down he always knew that he could never approach the great director's depth. So he turned to a mixture of romantic comedy and his own brand of 'art house fare' in the films that made him famous: 'Annie Hall', 'Manhattan' and 'Hannah and her Sisters'. Unfortunately, until the impressive "Crimes and Misdemeanors", he was never able to muster enough sympathy for his characters to make them credible enough or engaging. There was always that flash of arrogance underneath the surface that Allen was unable to hide; he was always one step above his characters, looking down on them rather then striking the necessary balance between sympathy and contempt.
At a certain point, Allen threw up his hands and decided for awhile that maybe he should go back to his strong suit as an 'entertainer'. He churned out fluff pieces such as 'Bullets over Broadway' and 'Manhattan Murder Mystery' but made one last attempt at joining the great directors' pantheon with "Deconstructing Harry", another failed attempt to emulate Bergman. Allen floundered until 2005 when he came out with 'Match Point' which marked a welcome move to the mainstream. No longer starring in his own films and filming in England, Allen decided that he no longer had to prove to the world that he was the next Fellini or Bergman. Up until the unconvincing climax, 'Match Point' was a taut drama chronicling the machinations of a lower-class retired tennis pro as he manipulates family members in an upper class milieu.
Vicky Christina Barcelona is content to examine all strictly middle class characters from both sides of the Atlantic. Before Allen shows us the 'dark' side to his characters, he wisely builds sympathy for them. Both Vicky and Christina are adventurers. Vicky, the more conservative of the two, is extremely skeptical of Juan Antonio's proposal to fly in his private plane for a weekend of wild abandon in a picaresque Spanish town. Her skepticism and conservative nature are her strong points. Christina, in contrast, believes in taking chances without thinking about the consequences so she convinces Vicky to accept Juan Antonio's proposal. While Christina often acts recklessly, her desire for freedom often leads her to new, interesting experiences which the average person would never dream of entertaining.
Juan Antonio, the suave Lothario, who sees nothing wrong in seducing as many women as he can, also has many likable attributes. Not only is he a 'smooth operator' but he has that 'senstive side' that women are drawn to. Vicky finds Juan Antonio's proposition to visit his father his "first genuinely interesting proposition". Juan Antonio's startling account of why his father won't share his poetry with the world draws Vicky to him. Juan Antonio's ex-girlfriend, the volatile Maria Elena, can hold her own with her ex in regards to creative pursuits. Not only does Juan Antonio claim that his strength as an artist can be attributed to Maria Elena but she is genuinely helpful to Christina when she teaches her how to become an accomplished photographer.
The plot of VCB never bores. The break into Act II occurs when Juan Antonio takes Vicky and Christina on a wild weekend. Up until the midpoint there are many twists: Christina becomes sick right before making love; Juan Antonio's seduction of Vicky; Doug's proposal to get married first in Spain and his arrival and Christina's decision to move in with Juan Antonio.
The midpoint marks escalating tension. This is when Maria Elena attempts suicide and moves in with Christina and Juan Antonio. More twists and turns occur in the second half of Act II: Maria Elena's terrible jealousy toward Christina; The revelation of Juan Antonio's infidelity which led to Maria Elena attacking him; Vicky's confession to Ben that she doesn't know why she's attracted to Juan Antonio; Judy's affair with Doug's business partner and her misguided encouragement of Vicky in continuing the affair with Juan Antonio; Christina's decision to leave the ménage a trios and Maria Elena and Juan Antonio's dispiriting breakup.
Woody Allen does a much better job with his climax than in Match Point since Maria Elena's 'crime of passion' is more believable than Chris, the ex-tennis pro's foray into full-blown murder.
Just as he views his characters with sympathy, Woody Allen doesn't hesitate to criticize them. Vicky admits that her husband Doug is a wonderful guy, someone who she's always wanted but cannot throw off her irrational attraction to Juan Antonio. Even at the end, she's about to be seduced by Juan Antonio AGAIN but is brought back to reality when Maria Elena's gun goes off and she sustains a flesh wound to her hand. Christina seems naturally drawn to vacuous affairs. Even at the beginning, she's telling Juan Antonio she'll go up to his room but "you'll have to seduce ME". She's also a bit arrogant when she tells him, "You're home free, unless you blow it". Christina never knows "what she wants" but does know "what she DOESN'T want".
Juan Antonio seems to go from one woman to another but is unable to make a commitment. His narcissism seems to always lead to bad feelings of jealousy amongst the various women he seduces. And of course Maria Elena is the ultimate narcissist in that she can't accept others unless they give her 100% loyalty.
The overuse of the narrator in VCB is perhaps the film's major flaw. One wonders why Woody Allen doesn't trust his audience to draw its own conclusions. Nonetheless, VCB marks a comeback of sorts for Woody Allen. It's a perceptive and critical look at European and American sensibilities regarding relationships and how they can go awry.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Beautiful
Added 10/27/2009
This is one of my favorite movies! The music and scenery are a treat to the senses. The cast is perfect, particularly Scarlett Johansson's neurotic, but carefree, character.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Very good, but missing something important
Added 10/25/2009
The reviews of this movie are all over the place, which tells me that a lot of people just don't get Woody Allen's distinctive approach to making movies. Yes, of course the plot and characters are exaggerated, to the point where the plot seems implausible and the characters seem like caracitures. They're meant to be that way. In a Woody Allen movie, the plot and characters are intended only as vehicles to bring particular themes into sharp relief.
In this movie, the theme is indeed quite clear. If you were wealthy enough to have financial freedom, how would you live your life? Most of us can't relate to that situation, but we aspire to it, so it's worth exploring as a thought experiment. Would you go for passion and adventure, throwing yourself into unfamiliar situations, thereby risking physical and emotional harm for the hope of a life filled with uniquely rich experiences and self-expression? Or would you instead go for an (upper-class) mainstream life of material consumption, social networking, stability, and security, all at the expense of predictable and monotonous conformity?
This movie explores these two options, revealing the pros and cons of each, and showing that neither option is ideal, with tradeoffs involved either way. For some people, the choice is clear, so at least they don't have to worry about making the wrong choice. For other people, the choice isn't clear at all, so they at least have a genuine choice, but either choice will come with a painful awareness of what was given up. Not surprisingly, what the movie fails to point out is that both of these options are relatively hedonistic, whereas there's also the option of living according to a purpose which transcends the self. In fact, the inadequacy of the two presented options could be considered evidence that a self-transcendent option may make more sense.
Despite this major limitation, I still think the movie explores its theme in a worthy and stimulating way, and the acting and scenery are also very good, so I recommend it and I'm happy to give it 4 stars.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
i am a woody allen fanatic. The plot, the characters, the location,etc... was just one amazing ride. I saw this movie in the theaters after the 2nd screening and I have been waiting for the DVD release!
Brilliant trio of characters. And as always, Woody Allen crosses borders and presents real conversations and subtle life ironies. I cant wait for his next movie!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Vicky Cristina
Added 10/1/2009
Since my two most fav. actresses, Penelope Cruz and Scarlet Johansson, were in this movie there was no way I was going to pass the movie up. I enjoyed it fully. The narration flowed smoothly throughout the film and the acting was good.
0 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Sterile and pointless
Added 11/6/2009
Ben Kingsley, as aging English Professor David Kepesh, acts his way somnabulantly through this unremarkable adaptation of Philip Roth's novella.
It's easy to detect when a movie is aimed deliberately at the "National Public Radio" crowd. Scenes in this movie repeatedly visit squash courts and an eatery advertising "Gelato and Pastries". Musical selections crop up with deadly predictability--most prominently, some selections from French composer Erik Satie. Okay, we get it, this character is an intellectual and he's well-versed in the schtick that comes with it, down to the raging self-doubts. If it sounds tiresome---yes, it definitely is.
It's up to Kingsley to carry the movie, and his performance is flat. There are so many shots of the back of his bald pate that maybe Patrick Stewart could have been used as a stand-in--or Donald Pleasance, were he still alive. Penelope Cruz seems miscast for the most part, though her character becomes more striking after she disappears for a while and returns with a short, Nastassia Kinski-esque hairdo.
But, the surest sign that this movie fails is the fact that the scenes intended to be the most poignant also are faintly ridiculous, as when Dennis Hopper's character dies, and when Cruz poses for a "pre-mastectomy portrait". I blame this on the director, who failed to elicit more than rote performances from a fine group of actors, and failed to enliven a predictable script.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A Passionate and Torrid Love Affair
Added 10/4/2009
Elegy is a slow-paced, beautifully photographed movie based on 'The Dying Animal' by Philip Roth. It is about one of Roth's prominent characters who appears in many of his novels, David Kepesh. In this movie, Kepesh, played by Ben Kingsley, has left his wife many years ago and has been involved in a regular affair-without-questions with Patricia Clarkson. He is a professor at a New York university where he sees and is smitten by a beautiful young woman, Penelope Cruz. They begin a torrid and passionate love affair but Kepesh is always afraid of the ultimate commitment. He has a son who calls him at odd hours of the day and night, deriding Kepesh for his life problems which he blames on Kepesh's abandoning his family years earlier. Kepesh is fearful that his May-December romance with Penelope Cruz will not work out so he is self-defeating in his interactions with her.
Ben Kingsley and Penelope Cruz do an excellent job and the pieces of the plot fall together very nicely as the movie progresses. The character development of both Cruz and Kingsley is very well done.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Memorable performances by lead actors
Added 9/21/2009
Elegy: mournful, melancholy or plaintiff poem, especially a funeral song or lament for the dead. This superb production is as close to perfection as a film can get. The editing, cinematography, and scriptwriting all exhibit supreme levels of excellence, but it is the acting of Penelope Cruz, Sir Ben Kingsley and Dennis Hopper under the guidance of Spanish director, Isabel Coixet, that ensure the enduring importance of this film. It begins with Sir Ben's character, David Kepesh, a celebrity social historian, being interviewed by the acclaimed Charlie Rose about the trumping of sexual freedom in the early days of the American colony. That tells us right off the bat where his interests lie. He is a man deeply committed to the aesthetic, who has made a habit of seducing beautiful young coeds when the opportunity presents itself, and falling back on his rainy day woman, played by Patricia Clarkson. It is, he confesses later, a form of arrested development, where he and the character played by Denis Hopper lived the whole of their lives as teenagers, incapable of receiving real love when it presented itself. Then enter Penelope Cruz in the guise of Cuban student, Consuela Castillo, a beautiful, exotic, and intelligent woman 30 years his junior, who falls for him. It's the real thing for him, too, but his inability to commit, exacerbated by his fear of aging and an expectation that she will eventually drop him for a handsome, potent young man of her vintage just about wrecks it for him. The dénouement is very moving. I won't spoil it, but make sure you have a box of tissues at the ready. The pace and intelligence of this film reminded me of Canadian director Denys Arcand's work ("Invasion of the Barbarians"). This must surely be Penelope Cruz's greatest film performance, and Sir Ben? Well, what can one say that hasn't been said about this extraordinary actor? The intimate moments between he and Penelope Cruz are truly memorable. No it is not cliched: it explores enduring themes about human interactions from a fresh perspective.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
