Robertson Continues to Think about 'Amour'

Hiroshima mon amour (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I'll put it this way.

* I continue to think about it, and everyday I think about it in a different way.

* The characters are particular; that is, I think of them as specific individuals, not as types from whom we should immediately generalize about how people should behave. That is not to say I do not judge their behavior and take a lesson from it. But my first reaction is as if they were real, which means they have their own reasons that I can never know, no more than if they were real people glimpsed and overheard. This is intriguing. I have to engage with them before I engage with myself. But you can only do that for so long. Sooner or later the movie is no longer a window but a mirror. (Nice, Robertson. Pretty nice.)

* As a man, I identify with the husband. I find myself asking: At which point does he go too far? At which point should he have ceased sacrificing? And I am not thinking of the suffocation. Having gone that far, he may be doing the correct thing. But I am thinking he should have stopped before that moment.

* Except when I don't think he should have stopped long before that moment. Who am I to second guess him? He's there, and I'm not.

* Except he isn't there. He's words on a page turned into sounds and images, just a construct. You could make the case the whole point of the thing is to force the audience to second guess.

* Every day I find myself asking: What would I do in a similar situation. (But I understand that my situation would only be similar and not the same situation as on screen. The movie is not a moral text.)

* What would I do? Don't know. Can't know. Might not want to know if I could know. I can't decide if the movie is comforting - I'm not a baby; I know this is coming and I will handle it as best I can - or challenging - I'm not a baby; I know this is coming, and I will handle it as best I can.

*I understand the director's intent is irrelevant. I understand The Intentional Fallacy. Variable kaleidoscopic interpretation is the hallmark of art.

* Right?

* If I were 21 and writing about this movie, I think I'd think, "Well, that will never happen to me. When I'm that age I'll be freshened up and turned out with the latest  assortment of fine pig organs. Very worst case my grandchildren will be carrying my brain around in a glass jar like a fashionable Vuitton purse."

 * One thing I do think every day:

    Amour or Amour?

Related articles

• Iconic Miniature Handbags - The Louis Vuitton 'Mini Mon Amour' Collection is Petite (TrendHunter.com) (trendhunter.com)

A Review of NBC Sitcom The Office from Eight Years Ago

A banner promoting Dunder-Mifflin, the fictional paper company on NBC's "The Office" hangs outside city hall in Scranton, Pennsylvania. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

12 February 2010

Arts Reviewing & Reporting

Apathetic is the best way to describe my feelings towards The Office. POTENTIALLY GOOD FOCUS STATEMENT. LET’S SEE HOW WELL IT WORKS.

I stopped watching The Office when everyone else did HYPERBOLE OR EXAGGERATION. WE UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT LITERALLY TRUE. IT IMPLIES SOMETHING LIKE: “EVERYONE WHO IS AS SMART AS ME…” —3 seasons ago—after Pam and Jim finally got together.  GIVES A REASON, A DETAIL FROM SHOW, FOR DROPPING OUT.

Well, that statement is not exactly true. HERE’S THE CORRECTION. SETS TONE FOR STORY: SOMETIMES I EXAGGERATE AS A FORM OF ARGUMENT. It seems the show is still going relatively strong with an average of 8.1 million viewers during its 6^th season. While many viewers may still be addicted to the mockumentary-style and awkard interactions among employees, that does not mean anything BACK TO EXAGGERATION interesting is still happening in the plot of the show.

WE WILL NOW HAVE LOTS OF PLOT SPECIFICS. SUCH SUMMARY ISN’T THE PLOT KILLER IT MIGHT BE IN A MOVIE REVIEW. TV VIEWERS MAY NOT WANT THE DETAILS OF INDIVIDUAL EPISODES REVEALED AS THE SHOW MOVES FORWARD, BUT TALKING ABOUT PAST EPISODES ISN’T A SPOILER – UNLESS YOU ARE CONSIDERING JUMPING INTO THE SHOW. BUT IF THAT’S THE CASE, YOU ARE FOREWARNED BEFORE STARTING THIS STORY. The love triangle, (or in the case of The Office, it was really more of a rectangle) also the most dynamic and entertaining storyline of the show, VALUE JUDGMENT, AND THAT’S FINE. KNOWLEDGE OF SHOW=EXPERTISE between Jim, Karen, Pam and Roy, was relatively short-lived, only making it through the third season. Between Pam’s thick-headed fiancé and the sexy Karen, TWO GOOD SUMMARY ADJECTIVES there were only so many obstacles that writers could put between Pam and Jim. YES. GOOD INSIGHT ABOUT SITCOM CONVENTIONS. A PROBLEM IN ALL TV SHOWS CENTERED ON A BURGEONING ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP. TO THE DEGREE THAT A SHOW IS ROOTED IN ‘REAL LIFE,’ IT CAN’T POSTPONE RESOLUTION INDEFINITELY. AND ONCE IT’S RESOLVED? WHAT NEXT? SOAP OPERA, OF COURSE, IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT GENRE Now that they are together, and with a baby on the way, there is pretty much no way one could write anymore drama between the two because they are far too in love with each other do to anything stupid. Hence, boredom ensues. I WOULD HAVE ADDED: OF COURSE, JIM IS ACTUALLY THE CENTER OF TWO RELATIONSHIPS, ONE WITH PAM AND THE OTHER WITH DWIGHT AND THAT ONE, BASED ON WORKPLACE CONFLICT, CAN GO ON FOREVER BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES IN WORKPLACES. THE JIM-DWIGHT TENSION GOES ON AND ON (8.17.14 HOW WRONG THE WRITER WAS, AND HOW WRONG THIS REVIEWER WAS. JIM'S JOB IN SPORT'S PROMOTION AND PAM'S FLIRTATION - TALK ABOUT META - WITH THE GUY WHO HAD SUPPOSEDLY HELD THE CAMERA FOR THE FAUX DOCUMENTARY INSIDE THE ACTUAL SITCOM - CREATED TENSION)

There is nothing left in the show that is worth investing in. There is no relationship to hope for—no relationship that we hope fails—nothing.  BUT WHAT ABOUT …? WE THINK. SHE KNOWS WHAT WE ARE THINKING! NOW SHE LISTS THE OTHER RELATIONSHIPS ON THE SHOW THAT LEAVE HER COLD The most interesting storylines were between Jim and Pam and, to a lesser extent, Michael and Jan. Jim and Pam, for most obvious reasons, were an interesting duo because of their slightly-less-than-forbidden love and their so-cute-you-just-want-to-put-them-in-your-pocket appeal. CLEVER SHORTHAND. SHE SAYS: THIS IS HOW I FELT. Michael and Jan, on the other hand, were of interest because it was so fascinating to watch Michael actually interact with another human being and have that human being not want to punch him in the face. CLEVER Yet, that relationship also ended back half way through season 4. There was the hilariously creepy love triangle between Dwight, Angela and Andy. Yet, that was short-lived and sometimes hard to watch. WHY?

So what are we left with now? The show has simply run out of angles. BACK TO A BASIC PROBLEM IN LONG-RUNNING SITCOMS

Attempting to revive the secretary-employee affair we saw with Pam and Jim, the writers brought in Erin at the end of the 5^th season. Unfortunately, she is simply a less attractive, less captivating version of Pam. And her new love interest, Andy, is a seriously less attractive (both in appearance and personality) and less relatable version of Jim. YEAH. IF THE OBJECT OF A SITCOM IS TO HAVE SOME CHARACTERS WHO ARE MORE ‘REAL’ AND WITH WHOM WE CAN IDENTIFY, ERIN AND ANDY ARE LESS SO. Watching their interactions in no way encourages the viewer to become invested in their relationship. SHE HAS GIVEN SOME DETAIL AND SHE EXPLAINS HER REACTION. I SAW HER POINT. HOWEVER, ERIN ALMOST MINDLESS ENTHUSIASM AND NAIVETE MADE HER VULNERABLE, YOU COULD ALSO ARGUE. SHE AND ANDY WERE EXAMPLES OF COMIC EXAGGERATION. SO THEY WERE A CHANGE OF PACE.

Michael Scott behavingly awkwardly is not enough. OH YEAH, I THINK: THIS IS THE SHOW’S PIVOT. The show has just lost its shine. It is not painfully funny IN TWO WORDS SHE SUMS UP MICHAEL SCOTT. IF YOU DISCUSS SOME THINGS IN DETAIL, YOU DON’T HAVE TO DISCUSS EVERYTHING IN DETAIL anymore. It is just kind of painful, but not enough to keep the viewer entertained for long. Recent episodes generally have one laugh-out-loud moment, I’D HAVE LOVED A ‘FOR EXAMPLE’ BETWEEN DASHES and the rest of the time is filled with slight awkwardness that is shortly followed by boredom. What made the show so successful, aside from the comedic appeal of a mockumentary-style shooting, was the balance between making the viewer feel so uncomfortable they may have to leave the room and the reward of watching the endearing, semi-depressing lives and relationships between the employees progress. THE PRECEDING STRIKES ME AS A REASONABLE SUMMARY OF THE SHOW’S INITIAL APPEAL, THOSE ‘CRINGE’ MOMENTS THAT SHOW MICHAEL SCOTT’S INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND COMMON SOCIAL NORMS, HIS ROLE AS THE OUTSIDER WHO DESPERATELY WANTS TO FIT IN. OF COURSE, LACKING THE COURAGE OF THE ORIGINAL BRITISH SITCOM – AND UNDERSTANDING THE ECONOMIC REALTIES OF AMERICAN TV – OFFICE/USA GRADUALLY SOFTENED THE ATTITUDES OF SCOTT’S UNDERLINGS TOWARD HIM AND GAVE HIM MORE MOMENTS OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE. I THINK. IF I’M WRITING MY OWN REVIEW, I NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME DETAILS. 2.2.18: ULTIMATELY THEY MARRIED HIM OFF AND GAVE HIM A SOFT LANDING. Unfortunately, all the captivating relationships between the employees have either ended, or ended in marriage. Where’s the drama there? SHOULD THERE BE DRAMA? NICE PLACE TO COMMENT ON FACT THIS SHOW IS ONE OF THOSE SITCOMS IN WHICH WE ARE SUPPOSED TO CARE ABOUT SOME OF THE CHARACTERS, THAT IT IS A KIND OF DRAMEDY, THOUGH MOSTLY COMIC. CREATORS MAKE A DECISION TO HAVE US CARE ABOUT CHARACTERS AND THEN CREATORS RESOLVE THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THEIR PROBLEMS, WHERE DO YOU GO NEXT?

A large contributing factor to show’s dark comedic story IT IS A SHOW THAT GOT PROGRESSIVELY LESS DARK line is the imminent downfall OF the company due to the fact that they sell paper goods in a world that is attempting to go online and, well, paper-less. It has been hinted at since the beginning of the series that Dunder Mifflin was in some kind of trouble. Yet, when a series starts out on the basis of an impending doom, writers can only make so many excuses and surprise turns before the company must receive its death certificate.

The writers of The Office must be on about their fourth write-around in maintaining the Scranton Branch. SOLID ANALYSIS In the most recent episode, “Sabre,” Dunder Mifflin is officially bought out by Sabre (pronounced Say-bur). However the Scranton Branch is allowed to survive because they (somehow) were the only ones making any money. Though this is very hard to believe due to Michael Scott’s incredibly entertaining capacity to not do his job, perhaps this was supposed to be an ironic turn of events to coincide with the several other twists and turns in the show’s past that have been counterintuitive. PRECEDING ANALYSIS SEEMS SOUND. HOW HAS IT LASTED THIS LONG? YOU CAN’T ANSWER EVERY QUESTION IN A SINGLE REVIEW  Or, it could be the network’s attempt to keep the show running in anyway it can in order to preserve its trademarked “Thursday Nights of Comedy”? DUH

While this episode had a few laugh-out-loud moments, including the altered  version of Miley Cyrus’s “Party in the USA” to welcome the new Sabre to the Scranton Branch, and the interaction Pam and Jim had with the competitive preschool teacher, the episode seemed to kind of drag on. It begs the question: how can the Scranton Branch still running? Which then leads to the thought of—why do I care? AND BACK TO THE LEAD

Regardless of NBC’s motivation to keep the show running, it has already surpassed its 100 episode mark and is currently syndicated on three different networks. Thus, it may be time for NBC to let this baby go because they have clearly run out of ways to keep us invested in any sort of plot in the show. We know the company’s going under. We know what happened between Pam and Jim. We know Dwight is always going to be creepy. We know Michael is ultimately helpless. What we don’t know is when NBC will realize all of these things. AS IT TURNED OUT IN THE YEARS SINCE, THIS FINAL ANALYSIS IS RIGHT AND SOME WAYS AND NOT IN OTHERS. BUT HER STORY IS FILLED WITH SPECIFICS AND WITH  SOUND GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT TV SITCOM CONVENTIONS. IT HAS A CLEAR THROUGH-LINE. IT IS BRIGHTLY WRITTEN. I LIKE IT

Related articles

• From 'New Girl' to 'I Love Lucy:' our favorite TV couples (cnn.com)
• Roseanne Barr Developing Sitcom Vehicle at NBC (seattlepi.com)
• The 10 Best Sitcom of 2012 (musicnfilm.wordpress.com)

When a Sitcom Jumps the Shark

We talked about the concept in class in the context of "30 Rock" and "How I Met Your Mother." When does a sitcom reach that moment when the rigidity of the format and the necessary stasis of the characters spread over scores of episodes mean there's nothing left to be done that hasn't been done before.

Twice.

I tried to describe the eponymous scene from "Happy Days" that I had so often read about. But, you know, I didn't actually watch "Happy Days," so I wondered if I'd gotten some key detail wrong. Apparently not. I had not been aware that the Fonz - a method actor to the last - would do the scene live on the water in his leather jacket. Oh yes the shark was well and truly jumped.

Related articles

• Happy Days (neatorama.com)
• Jumping The Shark (markmywordssite.com)
• Mystery statue joins Bronze Fonz on Milwaukee's River Walk (fox6now.com)
• A grim outlook for sitcoms post-'30 Rock' (stltoday.com)

Having a Conversation around Comedy

Comedy (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My comments yesterday were far-ranging and came to no particular conclusion about the most useful definitions of comedy and/or explanations for laughter. Here are some ideas I am going to apply to my comedy-watching as I watch our shows in preparation for reading your retrospective reviews.

Memo to self: You laugh at something.  Stop and ask yourself why you were laughing.  Ask yourself how you would feel if someone heard you laughing at this thing you are laughing at and asked for an explanation.  Even before you attempted an explanation, would you feel embarrassed acknowledging what it was at which you laughed? That laughter was spontaneous. It came unbidden. Where did it come from? Would you be pleased to have an opportunity to explain your laughter?

 My assumption is that laughter can be seen as encouragement.  It is a way of saying, “That’s right. I agree. Carry on.” Ask yourself what specific action you are affirming with your laughter:

* That we are all members of a community of one kind or another from which others must be sometimes excluded so the community can maintain its values?

* That there’s a community from which someone must be excluded unless they learn to conform to the values of that community? That the person being laughed should gain self-knowledge and behave better?  And that’s a lesson out here in the real world for anyone who hears our laughter? That sometimes we must be cruel to be kind? And remember. In a fictional setting, what harm can there be in being cruel to those who deserve it even in the most extreme form since no physical damage ensues? In other words, it’s all make-believe. What harm does a little ridicule do?

* That sometimes it’s good for all of us to play like children in wild and exaggerated word and action in defiance of social norms, and that sometimes all of us out here in the real world should be free and independent of social norms? That even if we are so oppressed by social norms we can never again play like children, laughter helps us endure those norms. (Wait. Unless our laughter is condemnation of childish behavior??? That would be sour, not joyful, laughter. Is our laughter joyful?)

* That human life is a futile, empty endeavor, and laughter sometimes equals acceptance of our imperfections? That the highest intellectual value is a cold-eyed, clear-eyed unsentimental view of life, a view that is invigorating rather than depressing.  We are able to face the void without blinking. This is sour, bitter laughter - but also brave.

Twenty-four hours later:  Having spent 90 minutes last night watching sitcoms - Parks and Rec and a very long Office - I concede that my initial formulation needs some tweaking. What I said seemed to imply that our laughter expresses approval of someone onscreen, of one of those involved in the joke, of one of the sitcom characters. That is clearly not the case. Laughter may express approval of the script, of the script writer (which is an interesting idea since I gather so many sitcom scripts are written, or at least massaged, by a group - hey! laughter supports a creative community). But you may be laughing hardest when everyone onscreen is playing the fool.

And let me be honest about the challenges of this exercise. Once I started "tagging" my laughs and coming back to them, I found it hard - so complicated and overthought it did not seem worthwhile - to tease out why I laughed. My wife said she thought our laughter quite often was expressing "unease." That doesn't sound like much fun. Maybe it's the context that matters most. It's a sitcom. At the end all will be well. Our laughter will not suddenly become evidence against us. So this thread continues to be a work in progress.

Generally speaking, the episodes we watched last night support some of our in-class comments about comedy and how it establishes and reinforces social norms. Parks and Rec ended with Leslie Knope explicit praising her community of friends who had overcome her absence to put together a gala to raise money to build a park that would benefit an even larger community. The Office didn't fit quite so well because, as it winds up its final season, it is creating as many conflicts as possible - Jim and Pam's marriage getting all tense and soapy - but I'm sure it's doing this so all these tensions can be resolved to everyone's final comfort. So we are  back to talking about community, in this case the work family. Pretty clearly this final season is suggesting the value of the work family by tearing apart the Dunder Mifflin work family. I assume comfort will be restored by placing all the principals in new work families.

Will any character be left in isolation and thus chastened? Will we laugh at the expelled individual? I do not think this will happen. This isn't Seinfeld, whose last episode was a piece of crap. You don't celebrate your characters' self interest for that many episodes and then suddenly punish them. It's clever but it isn't coherent. I always thought the last episode of Seinfeld was a thumb in the eye of its fans. But even that finale was better than the end of the Sopran

Related articles

• Worst Romantic Comedies Of All Time! (perezhilton.com)

If the Original Honeymooners isn't funny, Is This Funny?

We watched "Mama Loves Mambo" in class today, and the consensus seemed to be that the "period elements" made the humor inaccessible. What makes us laugh, anyway? That's Wednesday's topic. Are there laughs in this bit from 30 Rock?

Check Out This Review and Love Note: Blue Valentine and Ryan Gosling

English: Ryan Gosling at the 2010 Toronto International Film Festival. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Movie Review – Blue Valentine

            Ryan Gosling’s performance in Blue Valentine made me want to find the love of my life and make it work.  It wasn’t just his impossibly beautiful face or his impeccable romantic capacity, but his desire to fully submerse himself in love's hardships and paddle through.  It’s been a rather long time since I’ve fallen in love with a character in a movie (think Leonardo DiCaprio, circa 1998) so I’ll tell you the reasons behind my heartfelt adoration. 

            Dean Pereira (Gosling) is the ideal man.  He is handsome, caring, manly, creative, hardworking, funny … the list could go on.  The perfect balance between a sensitive sap and a insensitive jerk, Dean turned out to be quite the idealistic man, despite his broken-home upbringing.  Through low ambition, he spends his days working for a moving company earning a small but honest living. 

            And then he sees her.  And he immediately knows he loves her.  And this is exactly what women want.  We want a man to see us, and in that split-second, decide that we are who he has been looking for his entire life.  And that's how she felt, special. 

            But then she fell out of love with him.  His wife Cindy, played by Michelle Williams, could no longer deal with the realities of their relationship.  Cindy lost herself, swallowed up in Dean’s love for early morning beers and wasted potential. 

            But it wasn't his fault.  Dean is a grown-up Holden Caulfield.  Childishly hilarious, selflessly giving, ever-youthful physically and emotionally, he won’t ever die.  Dying is for suckers.

            And that's what Cindy couldn't handle anymore.  In the flashbacks during the film, we see Dean captivate Cindy in his vigor for her, being as goofy and charming as possible to win over her heart.  But in the realtime scenes of the film, it was obvious that his sparkle had wore off throughout their short marriage.  But what exactly did he do wrong? 

            He stood by Cindy's side through an unthinkably tough situation;  the acceptance of a child that wasn't his own, and taking her hand in marriage when he did not have to. 

            He buried a dog that he loved because his wife neglected to keep it safe.  He was beaten to the ground over petty jealousy, and still brought her flowers.  He was concerned that his daughter's oatmeal wasn't cooked, and taught her how to eat the raisins.  He searched for his wedding ring in exceedingly tall grass, when most other men would walk away.

            Dean’s upper arm tattoo is just another emblem of his love for his youth and family – like the Giving Tree, Dean will give all that he has to Cindy and their 3-year-old daughter Frankie (Faith Waladyka). 

            Still, for Cindy it wasn't enough.  She felt resentment that Frankie loved Dean more; resentment that he wouldn't get a better job; resentment that their romantic getaway took place in a trashy rotating-bed hotel with blue illumination. 

            And I think this was director Derek Cianfrance's point (probably more so than to create a character for women to fall in love with).  Blue Valentine is ultimately a picture painted to show viewers that a husband and wife should grow not only as a couple, but as individuals through their marriage. 

            Cindy kept moving - she raised a child, worked for a career, drove the soccer van, changed her appearance, kept a household - things that matured her as a woman.  Dean on the other hand, was exactly the same, minus some hair.  It's hard to live your life everyday when you're leaving behind the person you're sharing it with.  The band grew so thin it snapped.         

            Blue Valentine ended with Cindy and Dean walking away from each other.  Cindy moving forward and Dean moving the same as he always has.  And that's fine with me.  

Review or personal essay? It works for me because it's a thoughtful analysis of the movie, giving away so many of the movie's details, including the ending. But it sets up a nice little tension, between the movie's point (which the writer understands) and her visceral, emotional  tilt toward one of the main characters.  Maybe she could have made that point: The movie is a rohrschack, and my reaction tells so much about me.  But maybe this is stronger because she trusts the reader to get that implication. Strong writing and focus all the way through. But, kids. This is not as easy as it looks.

Blue Valentine

Derek Cianfrance

Ryan Gosling, Michelle Williams

Rated R:  real-live adulthood

♡♡♡♡♡ out of ♡♡♡♡♡

A Woody Allen Movie Reviewed by a Student in an Earlier Class

Español: Estatua dedicada a Woody Allen en Oviedo, Asturias. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Arts Reporting

February 16, 2009

The Woody Allen Letdown of the Century

***** (2/5 Stars)

“Vicky Cristina Barcelona” is Woody Allen’s fantasy, the overindulgence of a classic chauvinist craving stunning young women in unrealistic circumstances. Her thesis: Not everything in the review refers to the first sentence, but most of the review does. It’s a review with a strong POV that draws on interpreting Allen’s earlier movies – and indirectly his life – as a basis for very personal judgment of this particular movie. The legendary neurotic and romance obsessed director of film staples including “Annie Hall,” “Sleeper” and “Manhattan” reinvents his tired cultural commentary and sexual desires for a new audience. She generalizes about the consensus concerning his status, and I think she gets it right. That is, Woody Allen was once a very famous director, considered one of the best, which judgment I've read hundreds of times. So I don’t say: sez who? The film masquerades as something new – young cast, foreign location, but at the end of the day it’s just another failed attempt to revive his lost charm. Oh, she’s harsh. Harsh reads well if you back it up.

Now we get summary – but only after she’s explained her basic take which gives her summary context. We know where she’s headed, and we are attentive to the plot details she includes. The film follows two beautiful young women, Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) on a summer vacation to Barcelona, Spain. The college friends lead conflicting lifestyles, but seemingly more importantly, they seek very different fulfillment from love. Vicky craves seriousness and stability, while Cristina pursues impulsive relations and a bohemian lifestyle. One night in town a charming, exotic and handsome painter named Juan Antionio (Javier Bardem) approaches the girls at dinner and invites them to the town of Oviedo.

Cristina intends to sleep with Juan but instead winds up with an aggravated ulcer, still he manages to charm the pants off of Vicky for one evening of love making that causes aggravated tension and frustration for the rest of the film. Not just details but how details fit together Once they head back to Barcelona, Cristina and Juan become close and move in together.  Vicky, obviously smitten with Juan, makes plans to marry her seriously boring boyfriend. Juan’s beautiful and insane ex wife Maria Elena (Maria Elena), the artistic genius that once tried to stab him, tries to kill herself and moves in with Cristina and Juan.

Cristina first reacts as any woman should Reviewer establishes her baseline, reveals her values – furiously. However, she quickly realizes that Maria Elena can provide inspiration for photography, her new passion. Maria Elena builds her a dark room, they make out a little bit and bam!, the threesome love affair is born. Cristina becomes the figure that keeps Juan and Maria Elena from breaking each other’s necks. They all love being intimate, artistic and romantic with each other and the girls somehow have no problem sharing one man. (Must be quite the man.) Nice little throwaway, a wink at the readers that suggests something about the writer.  Drama, broken hearts, promise of a life of discontent and romance ensue and all stories wrap up just in time for the girls to head back to the States at the end of summer. Has she given away too much of the plot? Maybe. But you could also say she does a good job of describing how the plot forms a knot without describing how it unravels, so she hasn’t given away everything.

The contrived Here’s the payoff for her earlier plot description. Did her summary make the story sound contrived? story was only worsened by heavy-handed voiceover. It felt like a storybook, a photo-essay at best. More on her basic reservation. She wants it to be plausible. And she implies an important aspect of the film: It is a kind of travelogue. Allen indulged every whim, Short word demolishes him. It’s a word with negative connotation. beautiful young starlets locked at the mouth, Dirty old man? Allen's personal history makes this an easy shot violent artistic genius, not sure about violent? and beautiful scenery. It wasn’t fantastic enough to be imaginative, but wasn’t controlled enough to be believable. Preceding sentence makes me stop and think, and I’m not certain I get her meaning. But it *sounds* smart. Allen transports his tired discourse about the perils of romance, the boredom of stability and the aggravation of love Preceding is a pretty good judgment of some of Allen’s fundamental concerns as expressed in his many films. If I  haven't talked about the rule of three, remind me. to a new location, but not even Barcelona and beautiful women can breathe fresh life into them. What is the point of watching a movie about Woody Allen’s neurosis if he’s not even in it? Yeah. He was an entertaining comic actor until he started to get old.

The triangle is an old shape for Allen. Instead of developing one love story well, he incorporates as many as possible, leaving all of them un-relatable. Interesting. I see how she can argue that. The romance felt completely detached, uninspired and boring. The quirks, charms and humor of the past replaced with a mundane shell of broken relationships devoid of any passion besides sex and anger. Of course, sex and anger are pretty good passions when it comes to driving plot. But again she implies that Allen’s movies should seen in the context of what he’s done before. I’m getting a sense she’s writing to an audience that cares about movies and has seen a lot of them rather than people who have never seen a Woody Allen movie. She may be implying we should bring a higher standard to the work of an established artists. The characters, mainly artists by trade, lack the personality and intelligence of the intellectuals Allen chronicled in past films. Fascinating idea. Allen knows intellectuals but not artists. Allen’s new muse, Johansson, is a pitiful inspiration compared to Diane Keaton. If you don’t know his movies, this doesn’t mean much other than to suggest the reviewer isn’t impressed by Johansson.

This is clear structure. Now we turn to the things she liked. Despite disappointing characters, overbearing voiceover and clichéd storylines, the film looked beautiful and had a lovely soundtrack of Spanish guitar. The camera captured the historic allure and seductiveness of Spain’s cities and countryside. Each shot was filled with vibrant and rich colors, perfectly suiting the rich texture of the instrumental soundtrack.

“Vicky Cristina Barcelona” proves that even the best writers and directors can become predictable and trite. A statement of general principle it would be hard to disagree with. Hopefully Allen finds a new muse who can give him a lesson in innovation. It’s time for the second coming of Allen’s heyday. As editor, I’d ask her to rewrite her last sentence. I don’t think heydays come twice, though accomplishments similar to those of his heyday might.

In general: She makes emphatic judgments, and she provides enough substance defending them that I can live with those that are asserted but not defended. That’s how it can work. If you have enough supporting detail, the reader goes along with your glittering generalizations. This review is aimed at people who know Woody Allen’s career and his many movies. As an editor, I’d ask her to put in a couple grafs directed at someone who has never seen a Woody Allen movie. How would such a person react? Is this a bad movie or a bad Woody Allen movie, if you know what I mean? Now, what did I think of the movie? I liked it because it was so darn pretty, both landscape and actors, and – from my POV – a slight meditation on how Americans don’t quite get the sophistications of Europe – a theme that goes back hundreds of years -- that love bruises and amuses but you get over it (no harm done) and maybe learn from it, just one more step toward rueful maturity. However, because our anonymous reviewer is a young female, I honor her POV. She is a character in this movie in a sense, and you could argue she has more invested than I would in whether or not the audience thinks this movie is representative of her age and gender. She has shown me another way to look at the movie, and I appreciate the perspective. Bottom line is that I am entertained by the way her mind works, by its fierce engagement with the movie.

And just for fun let's link to Roger Ebert's review of the same movie. You will note some similarities to the student review: Both reference Allen's career and both include a good deal of plot, though Ebert includes less. You will also note differences: Ebert has taken notes and has some specific bits of  dialogue as well as  more comments about specific bits of filmmaking history and technique. But the big difference is that -  even though, as David Thomson suggested,  Ebert is as true to his feelings about the film as is the student reviewer - they are very different feelings. He is at a greater distance from the emotional turmoil in the movie - with age and pain come greater distance from the emotional turmoil of youth and a muted nostalgic fondness for it. (Indeed, what are movies other than borrowed  memories?) Also, there's no sense he is using the movie as a way of conjuring up the complexities (some would say the nasties) of Allen's personal life. Does that make his review better than the student review? No. Just different. Personal.

Related articles

• Woody Allen's San Francisco Movie Has a Name: 'Blue Jasmine' (sfist.com)
• Woody Allen figurine from Bigshot Toyworks (boingboing.net)