Went to see Midnight in Paris, which is a lovely profiterole of a film. I liked it, but then I generally like Woody Allen. Some of the traditional Woody Allen themes are present:
-Can a man be in love two women at the same time?
-Shoulda/woulda/coulda: At least one character deals with a “what if” question. As in: “What if I had stayed in Paris instead of leaving?”
-The writer struggles, but then gets positive feedback (just like Dianne Wiest’s Holly in Hannah and Her Sisters)
-The past was probably a better place to be, except they didn’t have antibiotics.
This is not an exhaustive list, nor is this a proper movie review. I want to pose a question to those of you who have seen the film.
*SPOILER ALERT* Quit reading now if you haven’t seen the film and plan to do so.
My contention is that Gil, in love with Adriana, should have stayed with her. I know he has a realization that no matter what period of history he’s in, even if it’s his favorite one with his idols, he will eventually be discontented. Alright then, if that’s the case, at least stay with the woman you love. Even if it’s her favorite time in the past and not hers. If you love her, you’ll do that.
Instead, Gil mentions antibiotics, leaves his love and returns to his present. His romantic ideal is trumped by the marvels of modern medicine. He ends up bumping into (again, like the end of Hannah and Her Sisters) the woman who works at the antique shop. She’s cute, but she’s no Marion Cottillard in La Belle Époque.
But that’s Woody for you. He’s smart enough to know that if you’re going to make a romantic movie, end it at the beginning of the relationship. Because we all know that there’s only one way to go after that initial pinnacle of attraction and delight.
PS No one in the theatre laughed louder than I did when Gil said he’s from Pasadena.