"Blue Jasmine", from Riches to Rags

Blue Jasmine

An overwhelming praise of a "serious" Woody Allen film? That should had been a warning for me, like "Match Point", that was saluted as a masterpiece, when at its best (Scarlett Johansson magnetic screen presence aside) it was an ok noir recreation with a solid script but a non-Allen film. "Blue Jasmine" is worse. I'm very sad to say that Allen's latest movie seems to come from another planet and characters are mostly unbelievable.

I could blame it to the fact Allen is too far from his natural environment here. Truth is that the world of Allen's filmography has been always pretty constrained in what regards to his sociodemographic scope. An intellectual, slightly upper-class American, recurrently related with arts or cultural industries. But that wouldn't be completely fair. Brilliant and very different works like "Purple Rose from Cairo", "Radio Days" or "Broadway Danny Rose" just to name a few depicted middle and lower classes with more depth an charm that "Blue Jasmine". And that's terrible considering Allen's new piece really wants to say something about social class in the new millennium, in this age of economic crisis where capitalism is showing (even to the most stupid) what a wrong system this is. The problem is that he tries to explore human nature, and its darkest sides, without getting there. Like the failed "Cassandra's Dream", the terrible "You'll Meet a Tall Dark Stranger", or the better but still sterile "Match Point", "Blue Jasmine" lacks depth and heart. And coming from Woody that's a huge disappointment.

"Blue Jasmine" is not a terrible film. The life of Jasmine French is the tale of a downfall, from riches to rags (not enough of these in real life sadly), that Allen exposes in a quite dynamic and wise juxtaposition of current and past events. It does seems it could work, as Cate Blanchett is the perfect actress to give her character sophisticated an elegant looks mixed with the vulnerability of someone who is always on the verge of a nervous breakdown. She is completely lost when she arrives to San Francisco (cool to recognise many locations of the city) looking for a shelter and a new start at her sister's house, a character so different to her that when the spectator knows that they were both adopted there's a relief. 

But right then things to feel pretty unbelievable. Jasmine's sister, Ginger, played by Sally Hawkins, who seems to repeat her "Happy-Go-Lucky" role to an exaggerate extreme. Her naivete seems a bit silly to me. And so are many of the situations, conversations (not very funny) and secondary characters that appear on the story. In particular, I even felt a bit of embarrassment for Allen with the lame and ridiculous dentist as well as the wealthy Dwight (wasting an excellent actor like Peter Sarsgaard).

Then it occurred to me that maybe Allen was just pointing how delusional this woman can be after losing her status and lifestyle. That maybe we were looking to the story though her neurotic, bipolar eyes. That maybe would explain the "wild mood swings", the "going back and forth", not in terms of structure, but in what regards to Jasmine's behaviour... but it didn't really worked out either. Because I didn't care about Jasmine. Not talking about feeling empathy for her character, but I'm referring to interest in the story. Everything kept going, but nothing grabbed me, with the feeling some parts were pretty forced and the whole narrative-dramatic arc being a bit flat (Alec Baldwin's crumbling empire could have been better developed). 

There's a glimpse of brilliance at the end, with a cruel twist in the turn of events on which Allen seems to be punishing not only Jasmine but also Ginger (resignation). I believe the director wants to hold Jasmine as responsible for the crimes of the greedy class, as the perfect wife who profited from corruption, and when reality gives the final slap in her face, she lets madness win. Like in "Midnight in Paris", the impossible desire to be somewhere else and escape from your neuroses and a life you are incapable of living. But if the Parisian dream was lovely and full of magic and wonder, "Blue Jasmine" is just the image of madness. That darker twist saves the film from being a flaw in Allen's career, but it's a big deception nonetheless. 

SCORE: 5,25/10

"To Rome with Love", Allen's postcards from Italy

To Rome with Love

I owe too much to Woody Allen in terms of "cultural education". The way I understand cinema, my interest in some literature, and even more important, a sense of humour and in certain aspects, a certain view of life, that we more or less share or says a lot to me.  So it will take a major landslide for me to miss a new film of him. It almost came in the form of the awful "You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger", but last year's "Midnight in Paris" brought us back my old great master and buddy.

Honestly, wasn't expecting a lot, so I can't say I'm disappointed after watching it. On the contrary, for quite a while, the film is enjoyable, and despite its extremely lightweight scope, it works. As it is almost mandatory with Woody, laughs are awaiting the viewer (many reserved for his own, eternal paranoid character).

"To Rome with Love" also benefits from the "touches" of surrealism, something he explored with brilliance on "Midnight in Paris" and a recurring element of his filmography. All four stories have an element of surrealism on it: being the impossible situations (the Benigni story, his own, the one about opera and death, and Alec' Baldwin, where past meets present) or the interaction between unlikely characters (the young couple arriving to Rome). Topics as fame (and its incomprehensible, ridiculous logic) and the pass of time are present, along with sex and of course, love, all through the perspective of a surreal comedy.

But the problem is that Allen has dealt with these topics throughout his extraordinary career, so there's little to be surprised about, aside from the surreal situations itself. After the "shock" of the odd moment happening in the film, there's not a lot to highlight going on. So at the end, I had the feeling the four episodes have all their great moments but are somewhat underachievements, and the overall result, although pleasant, is forgettable.

Another negative factor is the length of the film, something that has never been an issue with Allen. The two hours are unnecessary and weakens the whole affair. Several scenes, quite a collection of postcards from the "eternal city" are just there for the sake of make a tribute of the gorgeous landscape of Rome (a view that looks completely taken from old movies from 50 years ago by the way). I'm pretty sure that without them (and the annoying music) the film would have been much more dynamic and better closed.

This is an "operetta" film, sort of homage to Italian Cinema, and as the genre allows, there's space for going a bit "loose" and "crazy". But there's no balance between characters. On the ones that light up the scenes in which they take part are Penelope Cruz, (she steals the show, it's almost her episode) Alec Baldwin, Roberto Benigni (perfect as Mr.Pisano), Ellen Page and Allen itself (Judy Davis and Jesse Eisenberg are ok too). But they are not enough to balance the amount of roles that are underused. Some characters, like the ones played by Greta Gerwig, Flavio Parenti, Alison Pill are looking even a bit silly. And the situations are also uneven. Quite a few are over extended (the opera moments, for instance), the most "serious" (Baldwin's) one would benefit from some more depth. They work as jokes but loose part of his potential as the joke keeps going.

So, there's a lot of fun and enjoyable moments/situations on "To Rome with Love". But they don't mix together as they should. Come on Woody! You have been capable of doing so much more dozens of times before with such stuff!

SCORE: 5,5/10