Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105 
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 1:15:32 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Aug 2, 2016 9:56:39 GMT -5
Café Society(7/24/2016)
 Warning: Review Contains Spoilers
Through much of his career the narrative around Woody Allen is that he’s a good writer with a strong flair for directing actors but that he’s been kind of indifferent about his films’ visual style. I don’t know that this narrative was ever true but in the last couple of years this accusation has seemed particularly inaccurate. Unlike most of the films in his long career Allen’s last three movies have all been shot in widescreen and he’s more often than not been working with A-list cinematographers like Darius Khondji and Vilmos Zsigmond. For his latest movie he’s working with another major DP, the legendary Vittorio Storaro, who helmed beautiful movies like The Conformist, Apocalypse Now, and The Last Emperor. This also differs from the average Woody Allen movie in that it’s a period piece. This is far from unprecedented in Allen’s filmography but it clearly has a larger budget than something like The Curse of the Jade Scorpion or Bullets Over Broadway and it draws a lot more attention to its set decoration and costuming. All of this is not to say that Woody Allen has suddenly turned into David Fincher, he hasn’t, but he’s clearly continued to challenge himself in certain ways as a director even if he doesn’t always get credit for it. So the movie looks great when compared to the rest of his films, the question then is if the narrative is worthy of this extra effort. Set sometime during the 1930s, the film follows a young New Yorker named Bobby Dorfman (Jesse Eisenberg) who has traveled to Hollywood planning to find work with his uncle Phil Dorfman (Steve Carell). Upon arrival he quickly learns that Phil doesn’t have a lot of time to deal with him but does ask his secretary Vonnie (Kristen Stewart) to show the young man around town. He soon forms a friendship with Vonnie and quickly falls for her. However, she rejects his advances, saying that she is in a relationship with a reporter who “travels a lot.” On the “serious to farcical” spectrum of Woody Allen movies this probably sits somewhere towards the middle like most of his movies but maybe leaning towards the less comedic. It has some decent chuckle inducing moments here and there but it’s fairly sincere in its interest in relationship dynamics and actually has a bit of a dark streak when it deals with a sub-plot about Bobby’s older brother who appears to be a violent gangster by trade. First and foremost though it’s a movie about a love triangle and, on a more thematic level, it’s about missed opportunities and regrets and the perils of using too much logic when deciding who you choose as a mate. In fact I kind of suspect that movie is meant as a sort of coded defense of Allen’s much criticized marriage to Soon-Yi Previn. Whenever he’s asked about that particular tabloid scandal Allen has always said something along the lines of “I know it sounds crazy but the heart wants what it wants.” With this movie he’s created two characters who do not follow what their hearts want, marry for all the logical reasons, and they end the film regretting what could have been. It certainly isn’t a one-to-one analogue with Woody Allen’s own situation but I’m pretty sure it was in the back of his mind when he wrote it. There was a similar theme running through his 2014 film Magic in the Moonlight and I’m kind of surprised that more people didn’t pick up on it there. Beyond that little reading and beyond the pretty sets and costumes, Café Society is a pretty average Woody Allen movie. Jesse Eisenberg generally avoids being a Woody Allen stand-in, which is nice, but he does it by just kind of doing his usual “awkward guy shtick,” which kind of makes sense in the role early on but not so well in later scenes. The film also has a handful of sub-plots and elements that kind of never get a payoff. For instance there’s an early scene involving a hooker named Candy, which is actually a fairly funny scene, but it doesn’t seem to serve any real purpose in the plot and doesn’t really get brought back up at all. The whole gangster brother plot line also never really seems to fully integrate. It takes up a lot of screen time but it actually has very little to do with the course of the main story at the end of the day even though it is kind of interesting in its own right. I’m something of a Woody Allen completist, I haven’t seen all his movies but I’m well on my way. As such my standards for what makes a Woody Allen movie “good” or “worth seeing” are maybe a little different than a general audience member’s standards would be. This one provided me with a couple variations on his usual formula and for me that’s enough to make it kind of interesting. Others’ mileage will probably vary. *** out of Five
|
|
donny
CS! Bronze
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 10,632
Likes: 1,332
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:13:53 GMT -5
|
Post by donny on Aug 2, 2016 16:24:38 GMT -5
I really liked this, and much of that would have to be because of the chemistry between Eisenberg and Stewart. Much seems to be made of their relationship, and the fact that they have done a few movies together, and they really shine in this. For most of the movie, Eisenberg seems to be playing the role with a New York accent, but there are a few moments when it sounds like he drops it, and to me thats where he is at his best. He might be playing the same character in a lot of his movies, or at the very least, variations of it, but he can do a pretty good job of it. He does have this likeable quality to him, and a lot of that revolves his facial expressions. He can really draw in an audience and make them feel that vulnerabilty and sympathy that Allen seems to be striving for here. Case in point, one of my favorite scenes revolves around Vonnie and Phil coming to Bobby's night club. It's the first time he's seen them since their marriage, and the framing of the scene, along with Bobby's reaction is perfect. Great acting all across. I will say, though, I kind of wish there was more dramatic tension with Bobby and Vonnie before they decided to hang out again. I think that could have been developed a little more, and I think it's reasonable for there to be some bad blood. But I guess that wasn't the point. Stewart is great as well. The framing and lighting they use on her, namely in her introduction really goes a long way. It's clear she is supposed to be this almost fresh and alterntive love interest for the Eisenberg. She's essentially a ray of sunshine in Eisenbergs otherwise mundane life, so it's important to introduce her in the right way, and they definitely do that. Woody really seems to have a good handle on the story and his characters here. That may be expected when Eisenberg is playing a younger version of him, but still, it was very well done. I'm not as well versed on Woody's movies as I would like, but everytime I catach one, I want more. So because of that, I don't think it would be fair of me to rank this with all the rest, but I really enjoyed this one. I will say that I agree that some of the subplots could have been a little further developep. Well, at least the stuff involving his brother. The scene with Candy the hooker, I took as nothing more than a little one off, just setting up the movie and Bobby's character. All in all, I really liked this. While it may be nothing more than a simple love story in a long catalouge of Woody Allen movies, it's still executed across the board. Thematically, again, while it may not be that complex, it resonated with me. It was very bittersweet, and I really liked that ending. Makes you want more. |
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,626
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 17:07:20 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Aug 6, 2016 20:27:24 GMT -5
Woody Allen has directed a film nearly every year for some time now, a process I find to be puzzling but understandable. Allen undoubtedly is a gifted storyteller with a lot of ideas, but with such a demanding output I feel that his work lately is never as strong as it could be. His scripts often seem like second drafts that lack the wit, drama, and neurotic charm of his great works from the 70s and 80s, and while some of his recent films like Midnight in Paris and Blue Jasmine point to Allen still being a very capable filmmaker, Allen has also made a long string of very forgettable and mediocre films. Cafe Society unfortunately falls into this category; a film that on the surface brims with Allen's signature traits but is let down by a screenplay that goes nowhere and an abundance of subplots and minor characters that detract from the film's central themes.
Cafe Society is set against 1930s Hollywood and Manhattan where Bobby (Jesse Eisenberg) has just moved from New York to Los Angeles to pursue... well something, I guess. His uncle is bigwig Hollywood producer Phil Dorfman (Steve Carrell), who is attempting to juggle his demanding position with an affair he's having. Kristen Stewart plays the love interest, who despite working amidst the glitz and glamor of Hollywood, prefers a grounded lifestyle. Thus sets in motion an interesting love triangle that serves as the film's only real point of intrigue and where Allen settles into his forte. There are numerous supporting characters that round out the rest of the cast, but I mean it when I say that despite a good amount of time dedicated to them provide little to nothing in advancement of the narrative. It's curious that in a film with as short a running time as this one that Allen would divert as often as he does to members of Bobby's family in New York or to anecdotal breakdowns of characters in night clubs and Hollywood parties when it goes in one ear and right out the other. I understand that Allen is having fun with his eye popping set design and period details and wants to engage the viewer in the times, but it detracts from the film and I never found any of the scenes or subplots that revolve around these characters to muster up anything substantial.
One of the more interesting elements of the film is that Woody Allen has employed fame cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, who has lensed some of the most beautiful films of all time such as Apocalypse Now or Bernardo Bertolucci's The Conformist and Last Tango in Paris. And while I can't believe I'm saying this, the cinematography left me unimpressed. While there are some excellent dolly and tracking shots, I felt that the lighting in the film and the color palettes were all over the place. New York is graded with a muted palette that just looks really bland, while we constantly intercut between this muted look with a wildly exaggerated and overly warm, tungsten aesthetic to represent 1930s Hollywood. I'm all for each city having a different look, especially since we know Allen is keen on contrasting the two cities, but it felt tacky and messy. The worst part is that a lot of this overly warm look to the film is often completely unmotivated from any source or relies on contrived narrative points that never come up again (the lights flickering in Bobby's apartment in order to rack up a beautiful silhouette shot only for this to never occur again) in order to achieve its look. I completely understand where Storaro and Allen were going, but for me it never worked. Look at Chinatown, a film also set in 1930s Los Angeles, for comparison. That film was able to completely capture the aesthetic of the time while never vying for exaggerated lighting despite it being a noir. Cafe Society is a comedy and thus has a bit more wiggle room for this sort of thing, but if you're going to have this overly warm and overly muted look to the film, at least have the lighting be motivated to some extent. Again, I wonder how much preparation time factors into this. At times it works, but for the most part this is not a film that I'd show to prospective DPs to wow them with Storaro's style.
The plot itself falls back on familiar themes of love triangles and ultimately it just a sort of lesser retread of Allen's explorations of the theme from his past works. The characters express regret while moving on with their lives and share feelings with another down the road, but it doesn't lead to anything fresh. The characters themselves are pretty one-dimensional, another reason why I think Allen spending so much time on side characters is a major mistake. Eisenberg's turn as the lead is just all over the place. He shifts back-and-forth between overly confident New Yorker and awkward loner new to Hollywood throughout the film, never firmly planting his feet into anything. Bobby essentially characterizes the film itself, spending time saying a lot and whizzing through several characters without any of it resonating in a whole lot. In the end I knew exactly what Woody Allen wanted to say with Cafe Society, and I was disappointed in realizing that it didn't add up to anything more than surface level impressions of what we've already seen before.
That's not to say that the film doesn't have its positives. Despite the messy lighting, the production design is superb and it's nice to see Allen paying more attention to this aspect of his film, which to me is often an afterthought with him. Allen is certainly well versed in the period, and any film lover is viable to be swept up in Allen's romanticism of 30s Hollywood and its stars. In the end though, Allen's subplots don't go anywhere and his themes are tired and uninspired. Despite a strong cast and an uptick in production value, Cafe Society is a film that never reaches any new heights and, while not bad, will go down as another ho-hum effort from Allen. Woody, stop pumping out movies every year and take the time to develop your ideas into something more worthwhile.
6/10
|
|
daniel
Producer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,072
Likes: 245
Location:
Last Online Mar 13, 2022 22:49:30 GMT -5
|
Post by daniel on Aug 13, 2016 0:50:59 GMT -5
It's weird, I either love WA films, or I hate them. All the reviews seem mediocre enough that I'm worried it will be the latter, for me.
|
|
daniel
Producer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,072
Likes: 245
Location:
Last Online Mar 13, 2022 22:49:30 GMT -5
|
Post by daniel on Sept 21, 2016 15:13:28 GMT -5
Fuckin loved this. Easily his best since Midnight in Paris.
Eisenberg's best performance yet. Carrell was just great. Stewart fantastic.
The end, it just hit me. Still reelin' from the feelin', don't stop, continue.
8/10 (solid movie)
|
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,626
Likes: 3,182
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 17:07:20 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Sept 21, 2016 17:49:55 GMT -5
I thought Blue Jasmine was far better than this.
|
|
PG Cooper
CS! Silver
Join Date: Feb 2009
And those who tasted the bite of his sword named him...The DOOM Slayer
Posts: 16,649
Likes: 4,066
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 0:10:25 GMT -5
|
Post by PG Cooper on Dec 18, 2016 19:39:02 GMT -5
The conventional wisdom about Woody Allen is that he is a great writer and director with many great movies to his name, but that his frequent output has led to Allen being really inconsistent. I’m not sure I entirely agree with that narrative. While it’s true that the sheer quantity of Allen’s work has led to a lot of middling films amidst his masterpieces, the fact is most of Allen’s work is pretty solid and at the very least prove to be an enjoyable watch. At this point I’ve seen 22 of Allen’s directed works and I wouldn’t say I full-on dislike any of them. Even his lesser efforts have still been rewarding in one sense or another. Allen’s newest film, the period drama Café Society, is also probably destine to go down as one of Allen’s lesser works, but there’s still some good to be found here.
The film is set in the 1930s and follows a young New Yorker named Bobby Dorfman (Jesse Eisenberg) who travels out to Hollywood seeking a change. He takes a job as a glorified errand boy for his talent agent uncle Phil (Steve Carell) and in the process meets a charming young secretary named Vonnie (Kristen Stewart). Bobby is smitten with her and Vonnie starts to return those feelings despite seeing someone else. The film observes the two as their relationships unfold and their lives change.
Perhaps what’s most striking about Café Society are the visuals, which are a lot more prominent than in most Woody Allen films. Allen may have made other period pieces before, but few have had the attention to detailed costumes and sets as this one. The film has a larger budget than Allen projects tend to and that money can be seen on screen. This is a nice looking movie and the sets in particular are quite elegant. Allen has also tapped legendary cinematographer Vittorio Storaro and that alone does elevate the film. Storaro gives the film a very lush look that really emphasizes the glamour and beauty of old Hollywood. It’s a colourful film which is wonderful to look at and the romantic visuals are a pleasant change when so many other films underscore their melancholy with cold blues.
From a content perspective, there is little here that will surprise anyone familiar with Allen’s work. Common tropes of neuroticism, Jewish identity, love for New York City and old Hollywood, and strained relationships reoccur here. These are all ideas that Allen has explored before, and indeed that he’s explored better, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t value to be found in Café Society. Though the film is not one of Allen’s more comedic efforts, there is still a good deal of wit and some amusing moments. Additionally, the film’s musings on relationships are interesting. I’ve always liked Allen’s nuanced and honest approach to relationships and he does a good job not turning any of the various parties here into villains. Rather, all of the characters are just people trying to find happiness. The love triangle at the film’s set-up offers a solid exploration regarding choices and regret, but I don’t think the film totally nails this arc. Rather, the film is distracted by certain side elements, like a subplot involving Bobby’s criminal brother (played by Corey Stoll) which takes up a lot of screentime but never fully integrates with the main story, or moments like an early scene between Bobby and a hooker (Anna Camp), which is funny but kinda pointless. Neither of these things are bad, or even unenjoyable, it’s just that the film’s elements don’t come together fully.
Allen has always had a skill with actors and while nobody in Café Society is likely to win any awards, everyone does pretty solid work. Jesse Eisenberg takes the surrogate Woody Allen and in a lot of ways he’s an ideal choice. Eisenberg’s screen presence has often been that of someone who is awkward and neurotic so in this role it feels less like a Woody Allen impression and more like Eisenberg doing his shtick. Kristen Stewart also makes for a charming presence. There is also a lot of fun to be found in the supporting cast. Corey Stoll is really entertaining as Bobby’s criminal brother. He’s both kind but also has the perfect demeanor for 30s gangster. In fact all of the characters in Bobby’s family are pretty likable and are brought to life by some charming performances.
There is a lot of good things in Café Society, but most of it comes with the asterisk that Allen has done similar work better before. As such, I’m not sure I’d recommend this to anyone who isn’t familiar with Allen’s work as they’d be better off with any number of his classic films. Still, for what it is, Café Society is a perfectly solid little movie with some witty moments and musings on relationships. It’s no classic, but it’s a fine way to spend 90 minutes, particularly if you’ve already seen Allen’s heavy hitters.
B-
|
|
