Really?
Don’t you think Allen was repeating himself once again, with his three way lovers and sophomoric meditations on the transient nature of romance? The performances, Cruz aside, were pretty wooden, and the writing was mid-level Allen set in Spain. I love me some Woody Allen, but he needs to either quit or get fresh. His films are stale.
Do you think the transience of love is less than… what else?
What else is more exuberant, more life-affirming, than the fleeting nature of raw emotion?
This conversation is now a Nathan talking to a Nathan. Congraduations, both of us.
Huh?
There are plenty of things in this world aside from raw emotion, but that’s beside the point. It isn’t Allen’s ideas that I object to here, but rather that he keeps peddling them to us over and over again without anything interesting or new to add.
I think the film is too much fun, too well written, and too well made to try and pick it apart for criticisms. Personally, I just sat back and enjoyed every minute of it. Every single minute of it.
The power behind the film is its celebration of life. Of chance.
Importantly, it does this without fantasy, like Purple Rose of Cairo.
Or sentimentality, like Radio Days or Manhattan or Stardust Memories.
It does it with realism is an exacting as Husbands & Wives.
Which I think is something a Woody Allen movie had never done before.
Nathan, he HAS added something interesting or new to cinema. He has added a peculiarly interesting & seemingly accurate composition of a piece of literature. Think of Vicky Christina Barcelona as reading a novella. It’s structure, it’s cadence… it’s marvelous.
I’m notorious for not liking Woody Allen films as much as I apparently should, but I very much enjoyed this film.
Now I need to see Annie Hall.
You’re notorious for not watching Woody Allen, not for disliking him. :)
Is it important that Allen abandon fantasy and sentiment?
I’d hesitate to refer to VCB as “realism”. It actually seems like one of Allen’s posh little fantasies without literal magic or cinematic pyrotechnics. It seems strange that you compare VCB to Husbands and Wives, and then, in your very next sentence, state that this is something Allen has never done before.
But, once again, fate and chance have been familiar themes that Allen has addressed numerous times in his career. He has used affairs, romances – illicit or otherwise – and young, fresh bodies over and over again until the story is more than predictable. He needs a new trick.
Neh – Since neither of us are really offering anything other than superlatives, we might just have to call this one a draw. I’ve seen every Allen film – and you may have as well – and there wasn’t anything in VCB that didn’t seem tired. There may have been a few funny moments, and I did like Cruz, but otherwise this seemed like Allen painting by numbers.
I enjoyed the film but I didnt see anything new or inovative in terms of romantic relationships in general lol
Bergman made a lot of films about religion and death. Godard made a lot of films about film and politics. Chaplin made a lot of films about the lower class and love.
I could go on and on. Filmmakers have the topics they are interested in and will revisit these topics repeatedly. What is important is that it never feels stale, and in my opinion this film and his others do not.
Ah! interesting, Nathan.
The reason i bring up Husbands & Wives, is because it achieves that literature-feel through stylistic means.
Whereas in Vicky Christina, he achieves it through the script itself.
Also, Husbands & Wives is typically sardonic, where VCB is life-affirming, which was the whole point.
Nice try.
I’ll have to ask, if you can’t discuss a film without using petty words like “sophomoric” & “posh”, please exit the thread stage left.
Enjoy yourself.
well Sekzee, it’s not innovative in terms of presenting romance, per say.
the way the story is presented, the way it flows, then rollercoasters, like a travelogue told in third-person, is something I’ve never seen before really done with any success in a fiction film.
also, excellent point Drew.
Drew – You’re right to suggest the fact that directors often return to pet subject matter over and over again. In some ways, I’m treading a fine line with what I’m saying, because I don’t mind his preoccupation with certain themes and ideas. It’s important, as you say, that it’s never stale.
Look at the examples you’ve given. Is every film of theirs perfect? Did they always articulate their vision of theme? I’d say no for all three. Each one made dull films. I’ll go even further. John Ford is probably my favorite director, and I can tell you without reservation that he made some horrible films that dealt with very personal and often treaded subject matter. He made more than 50 westerns. Were all of them good? No way! I’m not trying to discredit Allen’s status as a major force in film history, and as a personal favorite of mine. I’m only suggesting that this film, like so many of his others from the last ten years, seems like old hat.
Hold up there, Neh.
No need to get snippy. “Posh” and “sophomoric” aren’t petty words at all. They’re descriptive. They represent my opinion of this film. Nor am I trying to one-up you by mentioning your reference to Husbands and Wives. It only seemed odd to me. Of course the two films aren’t exactly the same, but you made a favorable comparison between them, and I thought the comparison was meant to point out some similarities. Needless to say, I don’t find VCB to be radical in any way.
I gave the film 4 stars. I liked it, VCB is certainly suggestive and very well executed, but still I was left wanting more. I cant really explain why.
I only used the word because by using pejoratives, like the examples given, the conversation is taken down a notch.
It is possible to talk sensibly about a film you don’t like, without pooping on it verbally.
It’s possible to be describe something by talking about how it makes you feel, without using a list of tawdry adjectives.
What do you feel the film lacks? Please. Be descriptive.
What do you feel the film lacks? Please. Be descriptive. Substance.
Unfortunately, that’s not descriptive.
What substance is it lacking?
What substance is it lacking?
Interesting or meaningful substance. Funny substance. Acting substance. Dialogue substance.
Are you trying to say things that are false?
Are you putting me on? You goose…
The husband character is funny.
The acting is exactly as it should, the cast is vivid, especially Rebecca Hall & Patricia Clarkson.
And if you don’t find the dialogue winning…
…we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Yes. We agree to disagree.
Thank you.
Well, I personally think it lacks motivation. Love does not exist in this film. Passion and infatuation coerce the characters into a singular sexual figure. I knew it wasn’t going to last from the start. I didnt find that eagerness, or “life-affirming nature”, all that attractive to be honest.
am i too late?
Late? Never.
LOVE DOES EXIST in this film.
It exists in every desire for love the characters have. The film is about the search for love.
That search for passion IS that motivation. The film itself speaks of “only unfulfilled love can be romantic”. This idea has such staying power. To follow our impulses, to have the adventure, no matter how trivial it may seem, and sometimes, no matter how detrimental it will be to the life we’ve set-up. That is romance to the utmost. It is a whim. An ability to resist taking life so seriously. To try our damnedest to love & be loved.
It’s beyond charming. It’s fascinating.
i dont know about fascinating but you seem to make a valid point, I wont argue further ;) (becasue im watching baseball)
I’m gonna agree to agree…with Nathan on this one. I very much enjoyed it but nothing new or interesting is going on here. Clever dialog and pretty people who live a bohemian lifestyle does not in any way resemble what I think of when I compare a film to great literature. The structure of the film seems pretty standard as well. He hits all the usual notes and doesn’t offend anyone. It’s the movie equivalent of the Dave Matthews Band.
Wow. That’s a low-blow. DMB? Kings of bland-rock? Yikes. Stern criticism from Spence.
Well, i think the difference lies in the narrator, which, along with (what I see as) an atypical narrative structure, is something very rarely seen/heard in modern cinema.
& it’s not just a film about ‘pretty people’, this isn’t some teen drama on primetime TV. Woody Allen typically deals with the upperclass, that’s part of his muse, sure, but in taking them out of their environment he has done something unique in his career.
NE1
VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA
Woody Allen
Not only is this film as potent as Penelope Cruz ‘s strut & as expertly chiseled as Javier Bardem ’s ape-face… Not only is it a rarity in modern cinema, a classical drama & an excellent example of film-as-literature… It’s also downright hilarious.
It may be his most precise & effortless jab at the banality of the upper-classes. And for Woody Allen, that’s saying something. Vicky’s fiance Doug is one of the most the most elbowingly funny-because-he’s-not-funny characters I’ve ever seen. A superb comic-relief in an otherwise tumultuous duet of love-stories that twirls into a trio & quartet. To top it off, Juan Antonio ‘s father’s reason for not publishing his poetry is an anecdote akin to a great Oscar Wilde joke.
With one of the most subtle, unorthodox narrative structures of modern American cinema, it owes much to its disregard of genre. Anchored in its mode of storyteller, we are treated to happenings both omniscient & retrospective. The style is punctuated with unexpected & under-used technical-aspects such as irises, split-screens, & wisely chosen character reveals through tracking-shots.
All that aside, the overall mood is so well sustained, feeling every current the characters move through, the film dances to the spanish guitar Vicky loves so mystifyingly. And as soon as Maria Elena enters the picture, the pace becomes jazz. We forget about how well-written it is, & get swept-up in the fusion.
Essay: Comparison of Vicky Christina Barcelona to Jules et Jim