'Irrational Man', Dostoyevski revisited

Irrational Man

Our yearly dose of Woody Allen is here and, have to say, expectations were pretty high this time, as the combination of one of my all-time-favorite directors with Joaquim Phoenix, one of the best actors out there (now that Philip Seymour Hoffman passed away I would say he's the best) was exciting. And, in my opinion, he does a terrific impersonation of a hedonistic and deeply troubled academic. But he's not enough to save 'Irrational Man' from leaving me with a disappointing impression overall, imo falling flat, at times worryingly flat, as a whole.

Not to say the film is a complete waste of time, as some critics have said. A "serious" Woody Allen film dealing with existence, murder, philosophy is going to be more interesting than 80% of what Hollywood offers you any given weekend. Let me summarise the virtues:

1. Acting is very good. As I said, Phoenix is excellent portraying philosophy professor Abe Lucas tormented. The always haunting Emma Stone does a nice job as the brilliant but smitten student Jill Pollard, and Parker Posey is stunning, a real scene-stealer as the art professor Rita Richards, showing a physical intensity that matches Phoenix fierce way of acting in her desperate crush for Abe, a romance where she is “throwing herself” as her life in Braylin College chokes her.
2. In a pretty powerful depiction of a “womaniser” lying behind a sensitive, broken and misunderstood character, Allen is portraying mercilessly the other side of the romantic bad boy. Even more than that: through Abe Allen is also pointing out that the high class (Vermont private College) and so-called intellectuals in particular, have it all wrong. Check the scene of the Russian Roulette, the standout of the film. Snobs adoring a fake idol.
3. This is Woody Allen taking several risks. The narrative point of view is a surprising one, with two voices (Abe and Jill) telling the story, shifting from one to another. And while the topic he address is a serious, gloomy one, he attempts to blur the lines between his comedies and his dark dramas. True, is not the first, second or even third time we are facing a similar argument. Masterpiece ‘Crime and misdemeanors’, and forgettable ‘Cassandra’s Dream’ & ‘Match Point’ (yes, I said forgettable) deal with the same issues. But Allen is exploring a different tone here, sort of playful and lightweight despite being solemn at the same time. I’m not sure it completely works, but praise the risk on a director with 50 films on his shoulders. A romcom with a very dark soul. Or a noir film with a knack to laugh at itself. You decide.
4. The “envelope” of the film is also different one for Woody, looking gorgeous (Vermont seems paradise), with music and aesthetics (and light!) looking like a new chapter on the new yorker's palette.

But the problem with ‘Irrational Man’ is that the letdowns are almost equal:

1. The movie plot is explained to an obnoxious detail, with Allen stressing everything, reaching a point he almost seems he doesn’t trust the viewer’s intelligence. For me, it was shocking he decided to say everything and not just showing it (he has filmed so many eternal scenes where a face, a shoot tells it all...). The Dostoyevsky/Arendt note was too much for me.
2. Being objective, the plot, despite being smart, is derivative to say the least. Yes, I get (and Allen makes Abe say it too) he wants to talk about chance/luck, but the Raskolnikov-type of murder, Jill discovery and the final scene arrives so awkwardly, there’s a feeling plot works because of pure luck too.
3. The double narrator thing is ruined at the end. No spoiling here, but the mistake on the voices is blatantly huge.
4. Allen doesn’t explore the potential of his female characters, particularly Rita. Can’t help but thinking Jill is also a bit underwritten. Knowing as much as she knows, there was room for a braver twist with her…

At the end, the feeling is that Allen has been there, done that… and with more much punch, wittiness and clarity. Take ‘Crime and misdemeanors’ as the most obvious example: characters look completely human and complex, and mixing Judah’s with Cliff’s problems make the spectator connect with the more extremes turns on life. But on ‘Irrational Man’, the experiment on morality swallows characters and the “flesh and bones” reality, rewarding the audience with 95 minutes of suggestive possibilities and depth… that results in a somewhat lifeless movie. It's not a bad film, and has several points of interest (has some risks to be praised too), but is a flawed one.

SCORE: 5,75/10

“Laughable Loves”, Collecting Bad Jokes

Laughable Loves (Smesné Lásky, Czech original title)- Milan Kundera 
“Sex is the most fun you can have without laughing” Woody Allen

Am I missing something? Because I just hated this book almost from the very beginning. Laughable? Funny? I must have a problem with my sense of humour then. "Laughable Loves" wasn't funny at all. Not in terms of style, and not in what regards to the stories that conform this forgettable (hope that happens soon, please, I want to forget it so badly) read.

First, let's talk about the style, which in my opinion poisons the book and makes it a serious struggle to read, despite being a collection of short stories and not having an extended length. It's not my first time with Kundera, so I was already aware of his prose, frequently saluted by many as philosophic, virtuoso, and enlightening. Plus, in this case, adjectives ranged from irreverent, graceful and ironic. But no, this is not ironic. It's just pedantic and boring. Sure, my preference, the literature I defend is the opposite from Kundera's style, the so called "minimalist school" (Carver, Yates, Wolff, Fante, Bukowski). But I also love McCullers, O'Connor, Fitzgerald, Cheever, and a long etc, writers that go beyond the "dirty realism" definition. Anyway, I don't believe this is an issue of personal taste. It is just a matter of Kundera "explaining us all". He is the narrator, superficially in third person, but also being omniscient to the extreme. The consequence is that the reader is unable to get into the development of the story by himself/herself. Kundera tells him what to understand, when to laugh and when to applaud the author for his wisdom. That's not funny, that's not wise. It's just annoying.

And annoying are also the vast majority of stories. Sex, love, friendship might be topics of the tales, but Kundera is not interested on his characters of developing what's going on. He just want to mock(?) about pretty silly stories to explain a paradox/contradiction. But why can't he just show it on a good story about personal relationships? Why does he have to dissect what goes on from scene to scene as if he were explain it to a baby? "The Hitchhiking Game", third tale of the collection and the strongest by far, might the best example. A young couple on holiday decide to change their "regular roles" to play a flirting game that subverts their usual behaviour, arriving to a pretty challenging, let me add depressing conclusion. The potential of the story is there, but Kundera completely ruins it by constantly shifting from one character mind to the other, to let the reader make no mistake of what he/she should think about what's going on. Same goes with "Edward and God", another interesting plot involving faith, devotion and communism as strategies to... umm.. to be clear... get laid. So, go figure what happens with the less remarkable stories: they are just weak and lame, like the tiring "Symposium" and the irritating "Let the Old Dead Make Room for the Young Dead".

A writer should not give lessons to the readers. The reader should do it by herself/himself, thanks to the quality of the story.

SCORE: 1,5/10