|
As always, WARNING! This review may contain spoilers for those of you who haven't seen the movie. I will try to keep them to a minimum, but something may slip through. You've been warned.
With my extreme fondness for Midnight in Paris, I wanted to see this movie really badly. All of my teachers, however, all say they have a love/hate relationship with Woody Allen. Even some of my friends have said that they aren't too keen on Woody Allen, but from the few that I've seen, I kind of like his unique point of view. From the writing and actors and actresses and the way it was shot, I can see where he was coming from. Again, using Midnight in Paris as my go to reference for his resurgence in his career.
The premise was what drew me in, in the first place. It was about a crumbling socialite whose husband ran pyramid schemes all over New York, even among friends and her own sister, but once he got nailed by the Feds, she went to live with her sister in San Francisco to try and rebuild a life for herself. Right then and there, I thought this was the answer to so many male anti-heroes Hollywood has in abundance. I've seen countless posts where women are more than ready for an anti-heroine. And NO, Claire from House of Cards does not count. It's not her show, it's Kevin Spacey's.
I was the first to agree with them. I think Hollywood has had enough of baddies we love to hate. We're so caught up in their redemption story that we keep coming back. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, House of Cards, and so on and so forth. Where are the anti-heroines that doesn't result from a miscarriage, sexual assault, or physical abuse? This movie seemed like the answer to that. And from the start, I thought that was the movie I was going to get.
I will say that Cate Blanchett's nomination was very well deserved. Should she have won the Oscar? That's hard to say, especially given that I haven't seen the other films in the category. However, she did give one helluva performance that had me looking at her in a completely new way. Jasmine is definitely someone you would love to hate. She's completely self-centered, narcissistic, oblivious, and shallow. But there is something about her that causes you to at least keep watching. You find out she was an orphan and adopted, was always treated better than her sister, and always carried herself better than her means. I'm not saying these are redeemable qualities. Obviously, her adoption didn't really affect her. She just went with the flow and hitched her ride to the first man who was going places.
Enter Alec Baldwin as a smooth salesman taking people's money left and right, leaving Jasmine completely oblivious to what he's been doing. As things tend to do, it went south quick and the movie opens with her trip to San Francisco, talking the ear off of some poor old lady. Then, we see her with her sister and the claws come out. She's so judgmental towards her sister and her love life, with how she's supposed to be living her life, and it's revealed that she's never really had a plan in life. She just went with the flow. But the idea of being with someone "beneath" her, she turns up her lip. Her uppity attitude is so revulsive, I've literally found myself shaking my head, curling my lip, and commenting to myself how horrible this woman is!
I mean, she just doesn't get it! She thinks not throwing parties and being the center of attention, getting expensive gifts from her husband, going on shopping sprees in the middle of the day, making her friends jealous, throwing charity balls, is not really living. She hates that it's not New York, hates that her friends turned her back on her, hates that a man who thinks a tank and some shorts is causal attire, and she hates that her sister isn't more like her.
So throughout all this time, I'm thinking Jasmine is going to redeem herself at one point right? That any minute now, she's going to turn things around and see the error of her ways. First thing, she's a little crazy. She talks to herself, has severe flashbacks, and a serious drinking problem. But then she starts talking about getting a job, going to school online, then taking computer classes in order to go to school online, and then getting a job at a dentist's office in order to pay for those classes. Okay, this is a step in the right direction.
While she's doing this, her sister's life, Ginger, played by Sally Hawkins, begins to pick up. She starts to recognize that her boyfriend has a temper and is a mean drunk so she begins dating someone else. A nice little cameo from Louis C.K. And you can see that Jasmine is having some influences on the people she's come into contact with. Whether that's for the better or worse, I'll leave that up to you to figure out as you're watching.
As the movie continues, we see Jasmine in flashbacks and her time with her husband and his sleazy ways and the question that keeps getting tossed out is, "How did she not know?" At first thought, I can see where people are coming from. This is her husband and he keeps pushing papers in her face, or talking on the phone around her, or having all these business meetings, and she didn't know? Really? I mean, she had to know something. She had to look at the papers, or overhear something right? And as people keep repeating it, I find myself wondering where it's going. Are people blaming her for getting their money stolen? Is Ginger secretly hating Jasmine for making her and her husband invest their newfound wealth into Jasmine's husbands' company?
Or are they blaming Jasmine's husband for bamboozling them all and Jasmine is just getting the cast off from that because she was married to him? Again, won't spoil the outcome for you but it is something to think about as you're watching.
Of course, as the movie goes along, the obligatory assault comes up. As Jasmine is working as the assistant, her boss constantly hounds her for a date and tries to assault her in the office. My main question is why? And the reason I'm spoiling this for you is because A) it has no bearing on the movie or the outcome and B) it just HAS to be addressed, because it seems like no one is paying enough attention to the epidemic plaguing our screens.
And yes, it's an epidemic. WHY does a woman have to be assaulted? Not saying it doesn't need to be shown in order to raise awareness, but does it have to be in EVERYTHING now a days? In Scandal, Mellie got raped by her father in law. In House of Cards, Claire was raped. In Mad Men, Joan was raped by her husband. In Law & Order: SVU, the very show where rape is on every episode, Olivia was assaulted while undercover and was kidnapped by a psycho who brutalized her twice. Why does it seem like the only way to turn a woman bitter or get under her skin comes at the expanse of a man? Women are over thinkers, we worry about absolutely everything. Our minds are constantly turning and the slightest thing can set us off. It could be our self esteem, our self confidence, our work performance, our family life, and everything under the sun that does not involve a man. A back handed comment from a frenemy at work can ruin the best of days for a woman and turn her bitter or angry, and yet in every movie or TV show now a days, she has to be assaulted. Assaulted in this case can range anywhere from unwanted attention from a man or blatant rape.
Let's consider the roles reversed. What's the worst thing Don Draper's ever had to deal with? An annoying wife, uppity daughter, incompetent colleagues? What's the worst thing President Fitz has had to deal with? A frigid wife, a whole country to run, B613, his hurt feelings that he can't be with the woman he loves? How about Stabler or Amaro? Spotty records, losing their tempers, crumbling marriages? Then why does it seem so okay for women to be assaulted when their male counterparts get off scott free? Why can't they get attacked, or mugged, or subject to humiliation and torture? Why is it so okay for a woman? And no one's saying anything about it?
Why is it okay for Jasmine to get assaulted? Honestly, I could have done without it in this movie. Because she had a nervous break down, hits the bottle a little too hard, and looks good in scrubs means that she invites assault? Really? And the whole Oscar season, people were just raving her performance and yet no one has even mentioned if the assault was even necessary. I, for one, call shenanigans.
Then towards the end of the film, all is revealed. I will not spoil it, but it is a doozy. However, once you learn about it, you kind of saw it coming. Yet, you're surprised nonetheless because it is a very brilliant script, beautifully shot. As Jasmine's story is drawing to a close, I find myself lacking a resolution. It's kind of like the movie was just one small glimpse into her life and now we're leaving but her life still goes on. While admiral, I wasn't sure how I was supposed to feel afterwards. It was like the movie just ended. I didn't feel like Jasmine was redeemed or if she was never supposed to redeem herself. That she was just this messed up character who had a nervous breakdown and that's the end of things. As anti-heroes have taught us, they're either on the road to redemption or they're going to continue to spiral out of control, past the point of no return, and therefore no redemption. For Jasmine, I didn't know where her life was going to turn up. Was she going to get her mind right? Was she going to continue being an axxhole and just continue to ruin her life and the life of those around her? I don't know. And I don't like not knowing. I do want some kind of resolution from my movies and this movie fell from the mark.
I'm not saying this was a bad movie. It wasn't. In fact, I enjoyed it despite its hiccups I've mentioned earlier. The writing was good, and so was the cinematography. I found the direction really interesting. Instead of a shot, reaction, shot, where someone is talking, we get the other person's reaction and/or dialogue, and then back to the first one, the arrangement was a little more organic. It stayed on the first person talking until that person walked next to the second and then we see in a medium shot of them both, the other's reaction and/or more dialogue. I thought that was new and cool.
As for Woody Allen's resurgence, good job. Was this better than Midnight in Paris? No. I felt that movie had more of a message that I took away from it. Maybe it was wishful thinking, maybe not. This movie had no message. It may have been the answer to Hollywood's version of anti-heroines, but I've yet to see the formula we get from anti-heroes applied here. Good try, not so good execution. And that's okay, I would still watch this film again.
Welp, that's all folks. If you don't agree with me, that's great! Leave a comment below or visit my new Facebook page which you can find here: Facebook: Recap. Rewind. Rewatch. I'd love to hear from you!
With my extreme fondness for Midnight in Paris, I wanted to see this movie really badly. All of my teachers, however, all say they have a love/hate relationship with Woody Allen. Even some of my friends have said that they aren't too keen on Woody Allen, but from the few that I've seen, I kind of like his unique point of view. From the writing and actors and actresses and the way it was shot, I can see where he was coming from. Again, using Midnight in Paris as my go to reference for his resurgence in his career.
The premise was what drew me in, in the first place. It was about a crumbling socialite whose husband ran pyramid schemes all over New York, even among friends and her own sister, but once he got nailed by the Feds, she went to live with her sister in San Francisco to try and rebuild a life for herself. Right then and there, I thought this was the answer to so many male anti-heroes Hollywood has in abundance. I've seen countless posts where women are more than ready for an anti-heroine. And NO, Claire from House of Cards does not count. It's not her show, it's Kevin Spacey's.
I was the first to agree with them. I think Hollywood has had enough of baddies we love to hate. We're so caught up in their redemption story that we keep coming back. Mad Men, Breaking Bad, House of Cards, and so on and so forth. Where are the anti-heroines that doesn't result from a miscarriage, sexual assault, or physical abuse? This movie seemed like the answer to that. And from the start, I thought that was the movie I was going to get.
I will say that Cate Blanchett's nomination was very well deserved. Should she have won the Oscar? That's hard to say, especially given that I haven't seen the other films in the category. However, she did give one helluva performance that had me looking at her in a completely new way. Jasmine is definitely someone you would love to hate. She's completely self-centered, narcissistic, oblivious, and shallow. But there is something about her that causes you to at least keep watching. You find out she was an orphan and adopted, was always treated better than her sister, and always carried herself better than her means. I'm not saying these are redeemable qualities. Obviously, her adoption didn't really affect her. She just went with the flow and hitched her ride to the first man who was going places.
Enter Alec Baldwin as a smooth salesman taking people's money left and right, leaving Jasmine completely oblivious to what he's been doing. As things tend to do, it went south quick and the movie opens with her trip to San Francisco, talking the ear off of some poor old lady. Then, we see her with her sister and the claws come out. She's so judgmental towards her sister and her love life, with how she's supposed to be living her life, and it's revealed that she's never really had a plan in life. She just went with the flow. But the idea of being with someone "beneath" her, she turns up her lip. Her uppity attitude is so revulsive, I've literally found myself shaking my head, curling my lip, and commenting to myself how horrible this woman is!
I mean, she just doesn't get it! She thinks not throwing parties and being the center of attention, getting expensive gifts from her husband, going on shopping sprees in the middle of the day, making her friends jealous, throwing charity balls, is not really living. She hates that it's not New York, hates that her friends turned her back on her, hates that a man who thinks a tank and some shorts is causal attire, and she hates that her sister isn't more like her.
So throughout all this time, I'm thinking Jasmine is going to redeem herself at one point right? That any minute now, she's going to turn things around and see the error of her ways. First thing, she's a little crazy. She talks to herself, has severe flashbacks, and a serious drinking problem. But then she starts talking about getting a job, going to school online, then taking computer classes in order to go to school online, and then getting a job at a dentist's office in order to pay for those classes. Okay, this is a step in the right direction.
While she's doing this, her sister's life, Ginger, played by Sally Hawkins, begins to pick up. She starts to recognize that her boyfriend has a temper and is a mean drunk so she begins dating someone else. A nice little cameo from Louis C.K. And you can see that Jasmine is having some influences on the people she's come into contact with. Whether that's for the better or worse, I'll leave that up to you to figure out as you're watching.
As the movie continues, we see Jasmine in flashbacks and her time with her husband and his sleazy ways and the question that keeps getting tossed out is, "How did she not know?" At first thought, I can see where people are coming from. This is her husband and he keeps pushing papers in her face, or talking on the phone around her, or having all these business meetings, and she didn't know? Really? I mean, she had to know something. She had to look at the papers, or overhear something right? And as people keep repeating it, I find myself wondering where it's going. Are people blaming her for getting their money stolen? Is Ginger secretly hating Jasmine for making her and her husband invest their newfound wealth into Jasmine's husbands' company?
Or are they blaming Jasmine's husband for bamboozling them all and Jasmine is just getting the cast off from that because she was married to him? Again, won't spoil the outcome for you but it is something to think about as you're watching.
Of course, as the movie goes along, the obligatory assault comes up. As Jasmine is working as the assistant, her boss constantly hounds her for a date and tries to assault her in the office. My main question is why? And the reason I'm spoiling this for you is because A) it has no bearing on the movie or the outcome and B) it just HAS to be addressed, because it seems like no one is paying enough attention to the epidemic plaguing our screens.
And yes, it's an epidemic. WHY does a woman have to be assaulted? Not saying it doesn't need to be shown in order to raise awareness, but does it have to be in EVERYTHING now a days? In Scandal, Mellie got raped by her father in law. In House of Cards, Claire was raped. In Mad Men, Joan was raped by her husband. In Law & Order: SVU, the very show where rape is on every episode, Olivia was assaulted while undercover and was kidnapped by a psycho who brutalized her twice. Why does it seem like the only way to turn a woman bitter or get under her skin comes at the expanse of a man? Women are over thinkers, we worry about absolutely everything. Our minds are constantly turning and the slightest thing can set us off. It could be our self esteem, our self confidence, our work performance, our family life, and everything under the sun that does not involve a man. A back handed comment from a frenemy at work can ruin the best of days for a woman and turn her bitter or angry, and yet in every movie or TV show now a days, she has to be assaulted. Assaulted in this case can range anywhere from unwanted attention from a man or blatant rape.
Let's consider the roles reversed. What's the worst thing Don Draper's ever had to deal with? An annoying wife, uppity daughter, incompetent colleagues? What's the worst thing President Fitz has had to deal with? A frigid wife, a whole country to run, B613, his hurt feelings that he can't be with the woman he loves? How about Stabler or Amaro? Spotty records, losing their tempers, crumbling marriages? Then why does it seem so okay for women to be assaulted when their male counterparts get off scott free? Why can't they get attacked, or mugged, or subject to humiliation and torture? Why is it so okay for a woman? And no one's saying anything about it?
Why is it okay for Jasmine to get assaulted? Honestly, I could have done without it in this movie. Because she had a nervous break down, hits the bottle a little too hard, and looks good in scrubs means that she invites assault? Really? And the whole Oscar season, people were just raving her performance and yet no one has even mentioned if the assault was even necessary. I, for one, call shenanigans.
Then towards the end of the film, all is revealed. I will not spoil it, but it is a doozy. However, once you learn about it, you kind of saw it coming. Yet, you're surprised nonetheless because it is a very brilliant script, beautifully shot. As Jasmine's story is drawing to a close, I find myself lacking a resolution. It's kind of like the movie was just one small glimpse into her life and now we're leaving but her life still goes on. While admiral, I wasn't sure how I was supposed to feel afterwards. It was like the movie just ended. I didn't feel like Jasmine was redeemed or if she was never supposed to redeem herself. That she was just this messed up character who had a nervous breakdown and that's the end of things. As anti-heroes have taught us, they're either on the road to redemption or they're going to continue to spiral out of control, past the point of no return, and therefore no redemption. For Jasmine, I didn't know where her life was going to turn up. Was she going to get her mind right? Was she going to continue being an axxhole and just continue to ruin her life and the life of those around her? I don't know. And I don't like not knowing. I do want some kind of resolution from my movies and this movie fell from the mark.
I'm not saying this was a bad movie. It wasn't. In fact, I enjoyed it despite its hiccups I've mentioned earlier. The writing was good, and so was the cinematography. I found the direction really interesting. Instead of a shot, reaction, shot, where someone is talking, we get the other person's reaction and/or dialogue, and then back to the first one, the arrangement was a little more organic. It stayed on the first person talking until that person walked next to the second and then we see in a medium shot of them both, the other's reaction and/or more dialogue. I thought that was new and cool.
As for Woody Allen's resurgence, good job. Was this better than Midnight in Paris? No. I felt that movie had more of a message that I took away from it. Maybe it was wishful thinking, maybe not. This movie had no message. It may have been the answer to Hollywood's version of anti-heroines, but I've yet to see the formula we get from anti-heroes applied here. Good try, not so good execution. And that's okay, I would still watch this film again.
Welp, that's all folks. If you don't agree with me, that's great! Leave a comment below or visit my new Facebook page which you can find here: Facebook: Recap. Rewind. Rewatch. I'd love to hear from you!
