Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

SpoutBlog on spout.com

  • 10 Movies Sold on a Sex Scene

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    9 1/2 Weeks  (1986)

    Caligula  (1980)

    The Crying Game  (1992)

    Hot Shots!  (1991)

    Mom and Dad  (1947)

    Traffic in Souls  (1913)

    Hypocrites  (1914)

    Bound  (1996)

    Buffalo '66  (1998)

    Wild Things  (1998)

    American Pie  (2001)

    Mulholland Dr.  (2001)

    The Brown Bunny  (2004)

    Lust, Caution  (2007)

    There apparently are other reasons to see Woody Allen’s Vicky Cristina Barcelona besides the infamous lesbian kiss between Scarlett Johansson and Penélope Cruz or the threesome between these actresses and Javier Bardem. But as the first things most of us heard about the movie, the sex scenes are certainly a big sell (the ménage à trois is even being used in a promotional contest to win a “threesome” with ScarJo). Even if they’re reportedly underwhelming.

    Promise of tantalizing footage has been an appeal for moviegoers likely since the dawn of cinema, with film pioneer Eadweard Muybridge’s The Human Figure in Motion - Descending Stairs and Turning Around featuring nudity as far back as the 1880s. And if you’ve seen any of the titles included in today’s list, chances are their respective sex scenes were at least part of what made you buy a ticket (or rent the video).

    1. The Brown Bunny (2003) - As if this was the first feature film to show an actual blowjob. Yet the promise of seeing starlet Chloë Sevigny with a mouthful of Vincent Gallo was a huge tool in the marketing of this otherwise artfully shot but depressing movie, an ultimately disappointing follow up to Gallo’s highly enjoyable debut, Buffalo ‘66. Though the trailer above is quite tasteful, American ads for the film exploiting the fellatio sequence include a questionable billboard in Los Angeles and a theatrical spot that simply labeled it “the most controversial American film ever made” and spotlighted that it is for adults only. Too bad it was made in the era of internet porn and so wasn’t nearly as profitable as the blowjob blockbuster Deep Throat.
    2. 9 ½ Weeks (1986) - Here is the first of many films on this list that I haven’t actually seen. I guess sex just doesn’t sell me on a film like it does other people. Having such a detachment, though, makes it clearer for me to see how effective most of these sex scenes were, since I have no idea what this movie is about, yet I am sufficiently familiar with the scene involving ice cubes — though I think I’ve really only seen as much as is shown in the trailer above (the fuller, better quality version can be see here), as well as the parody in Hot Shots! I was only 8½ when 9 ½ Weeks came out, and I remember then hearing about the allure of the sex scenes. 22 years later, I still haven’t heard of any other reason to see it.
    3. Wild Things (1998) - A decade before ScarJo and PenCruz locked lips for Vicky Cristina Barcelona, this movie was sold on the prospect of seeing lesbian action between Denise Richards and Neve Campbell, who also participate in a threesome with Matt Dillon. Again, the trailer above doesn’t do a good job of exploiting the sex scenes, but fortunately word got out about them and the movie became fairly successful. Similar movies that likely attracted some audiences due solely to the inclusion of lesbian scenes include Bound, Mulholland Dr. and, forty years ago, The Killing of Sister George.
    4. Traffic in Souls (1913) - Going back almost a century, this film was one of the first features to be sold for its “sex scenes”, according to the comprehensive (53 page) “Sex in Cinema” guide at FilmSite.org. Historically, it was the first American feature-length sex film, the most expensive production of its time, the greatest moneymaker of its time and, well, there might never have been a Universal Pictures without its being a success for Carl Laemmle and his Independent Motion Picture Company. For those of you disappointed that the film lacks actual nudity, check out this clip from Lois Weber’s 1915 feature Hypocrites, which does contain a completely naked woman prancing around a forest and therefore had a very controversial release.
    5. Monika: Story of a Bad Girl (1953)- Kroger Babb, which also had one of the highest grossing films of the ’40s (Mom and Dad) thanks to promises like “EVERYTHING SHOWN!”, distributed this American version of Ingmar Bergman’s Summer with Monika, which was cut down, dubbed and re-scored and marketed solely on the appeal of its nudity and single love scene.
    6. American Pie - It may not be a sexy sex scene, but there’s no denying that the love act shared by Jason Biggs and a pie was a draw for audiences hungry for gross out humor. Never mind the scene’s inclusion in the trailer or the poster with the poked-in pie featured prominently, the title alone alludes to the act.
    7. Emmanuelle (1974) - I grew up always thinking that the Emmanuelle series of films were simply famous pornos, like Deep Throat or the Debbie Does …. franchise. But that’s probably because it has spawned so many ripoffs and has become synonymous with erotic films. Plus, in my lifetime, softcore movies have been more associated with late night Cinemax (or Skinamax) and straight-to-video titles. I would have never guessed that this was one of France’s highest grossing films of all time nor that film critics such as Roger Ebert paid it attention let alone gave it a good review. But at its time, it must have been very appealing to have so much nudity and so many sex scenes without displaying hardcore penetration. Or, as Ebert wrote: “It’s a relief to see a movie that drops the gynecology and returns to a certain amount of sexy sophistication.”
    8. Caligula - Of course, there was also this big-budget, mainstream Hollywood production, to which Ebert gave zero stars and admitted walking out of. He even included a quote from a fellow moviegoer: “‘This movie,’ said the lady in front of me at the drinking fountain, ‘is the worst piece of shit I have ever seen.’” Produced by Penthouse publisher Bob Guccione and starring highly respectable British actors such as John Gielgud, Peter O’Toole and Helen Mirren, the epic period piece was certainly expected to cash in on the popularity of erotic films in the ’70s. Ebert, one more time: “I assume that the crowds lining up for admission to the Davis Theater were hoping for some sort of erotic experience; I doubt that they were spending $15 a couple for a lesson on the ancient history of Rome.”
    9. The Crying Game - Possibly the only movie marketed for a sex scene that wasn’t marketed for being a sex scene. Instead, the shocking moment when a seemingly heterosexual love scene is revealed to in fact be a homosexual love scene was famously employed in marketing the secret plot twist that comes with it.
    10. Lust, Caution - It’s possible that selling the explicit (and allegedly real) sex scenes in this Ang Lee film hurt it, because the well-publicized embrace of its NC-17 rating made the film seem like these scenes were the main reason to go see it. Never mind the awards the film received or the fair amount of positive reviews. Looking at its dismal $4.6 million U.S. gross, it’s apparent that sex is not as big a sell as it once was.

    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Rohmer on the Lower East Side

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Yes, there’s a new Eric Rohmer movie, and yes, it’s premiering in New York tonight. How come you didn’t know about it? I don’t know, but I barely knew about it (or at least, about its scheduled premiere), so don’t feel too bad. The Romance of Astree and Celadon screened last year at the Toronto and New York Film Festivals, and then sat on the shelf for awhile until Koch Lorber picked it up; its one-week run at Anthology Film Archives is probably a run up to an impending release on DVD. But as all signs point to this being the 88 year-old French master’s final film, you’ll probably want to take your final chance to see a new Rohmer film on a big screen.

    Céladon won quite a few hearts in Toronto, but it didn’t seem to go over so well when it screened at NYFF. I know more than a few members of the press corps didn’t make it to the final frame, and after the screening, I heard a lot of “awful”s and “interminable”s in line for the ladies room. I’ll admit that it may not be Rohmer’s finest hour in terms of filmmaking craft; comparisons to a high school production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream may not be entirely off the mark. But I would argue that the plotting needs to be as deliberate as it is, and the overall technique as rudimentary, in order for the film to work as a romantic fable.

    The plot is typical fable stuff: Astree and Celadon are young lovers planning to marry when a misunderstanding leads Astree to doubt Celadon’s infidelity. Sure that things are totally mucked up and that his beloved will never forgive him, Celadon tries to kill himself. Astree thinks Celadon is dead and cannot be consoled, but she doesn’t know that he was actually saved by the 5th century version of a femme fatale. Various philosophical meditations on love and commitment ensue, until Celadon finally figures out the appropriate guise for sneaking back into Astree’s life.

    The central hour of the film is a little silly and sloggy. It fairly oozes that certain trademark Rohmer essence that Pauline Kael (pejoratively) termed “seriocomic triviality.” But in the final thirty minutes Céladon develops into a beautifully bizarre, softcore fairy tale of sorts, and amazingly, it’s at the film’s absurdist peak that Rohmer’s deeper themes become clear. For a film in which a hot-to-trot nymph princess imprisons a cross-dressing himbo, it offers a surprisingly touching celebration of the spiritual over the physical, and as a tale of a crisis of romantic faith, it could play comfortably alongside any of the 1930s marriage comedies. As a probable capper to Rohmer’s career, Céladon’s underlying sentiment may be more moving than what’s actually on screen, but that’s enough for me.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • The Dark Knight: Where’s the Video Game?

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    This article is filled with sour notes about the state of Batman video games, but if you want some pure audio delight, click here to listen to Frank Gorshin (he played The Riddler on the Adam West Batman TV show) sing “The Riddler.” Awesome.

    Batman is known for vanishing into the night in order to instill fear into his foes, and to confound Commissioner Gordon who always wonders how he disappears so quickly. However, his video games are also known for leaving store shelves just as quickly and quietly. Is that why there’s no Dark Knight video game? Commission Gordon himself, looking a bit like Garth from Wayne’s World, was shown a tiny bit of the game, as you can see in this clip… so where is it?

    It’s no secret that video games based on the Batman franchise have been anything less than lackluster. Ever since the first Batman game appeared in 1986, things have been pretty bleak for the caped crusader. In fact, in his first outing, he had to rescue Robin by finding pieces of his Bat-hovercraft. Thrilling. Things didn’t even fare much better for him when the Tim Burton Batman blockbuster came out in 1989 and he appeared in a game that was “essentially an evolutionary step on from Pac-Man.”

    There have been over 17 Batman games, and none of them have been a hit. In fact, the franchise hit some of the lowest video game scores ever when Batman: Dark Tomorrow came out for the Nintendo GameCube and the Xbox in 2003. It was so reviled that Game Informer gave it 0.75 out of 10. Not exactly a stellar outing for such an iconic character, who had already suffered through releases like Batman: Gotham City Racer and horrid versions of the three Batman movie sequels.

    And if you thought things would improve when Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale rebooted the Batman franchise in 2005, think again. They did release a Batman Begins game just a couple of days after the movie hit theaters, but it was poorly received and panned, even though all of the actors from the movie lent their voices to the game. I don’t want to harp on this much, but it’s just the Law of Video Games at work: the less time you spend developing a game, the more it will suck. This seems to be squared when you’re dealing with video game based on a movie.

    But really, what’s the problem here? Sure, bringing a superhero like Superman to life in a video game can be a problem, because he’s got that whole uber-powerful thing going on, and he’s supposed to be able to fly faster than the speed of light, but Batman is just a guy in a funky suit who punches people. Why is it so hard to design a game around him? In fact, you take the mythos from the comics one step further, where he’s called the World’s Greatest Detective (fyi: DC stands for Detective Comics) and this is a no-brainer. Have the guy do some detecting! Punch, detect, kick, detect, grappling hook, detect, and so on. There’s your game.

    Yet, still we wait. There’s a glimmer of something on the horizon this week as tidbits were leaked and then later confirmed about two upcoming new Batman games. One called Batman: Arkham Asylum which is being developed by Rocksteady Studios and Eidos, and the mystery game that Oldman was talking about. Arkham Asylum will feature appearances from the Joker, Harley Quinn, Killer Croc, Penguin, Riddler, Scarecrow, and should be “dark and gritty.”

    The Dark Knight game, being developed by Pandemic, has apparently had a fair share of problems like repetitive gameplay, which may explain why nobody other than Gary Oldman and his magic coke bottle glasses have seen any of the gameplay footage. That game will supposedly be based on the film, but set after that movie ends. I applaud any movie-based video game that doesn’t try to emulate exactly what you saw on the screen in the game, but in Batman’s case I’m willing to make an exception. Who wouldn’t want to check out the Batcave, amble around town as a billionaire, dress up like a flying rodent, drive the Batmobile around, and glide & grapple across Gotham City?

    The answer is, everyone wants to do that. Yes, even your Grandma. In the meantime, you’ll have to attempt to sate your Batman gaming hungers with Lego Batman: The Video Game on September 23rd, and Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe on November 10th. When one of the most recognized superheroes in the world who just happens to be coming off the tail end of one of the most profitiable films in history is relying on colored bricks and an appearance in a sequel to a 16 year old fighting game to be his only video game representations… you know you’ve done something wrong.

    Kevin Kelly, a contributor to Joystiq, io9, Cinematical, Film School Rejects and countless other weblogs, will be weighing in on the intersection between film and video games every Thursday here on SpoutBlog. Please ask him personal questions, shower him with flattery and/or rip apart his argument in the comments. Game on.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Tropic Thunder: Hollywood Will Gently Nibble Itself

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Tropic Thunder  (2008)

    I wish I had smuggled the Polaroid snapshot of Nolte from my former employer, a men’s homeless shelter. Nolte wasn’t his real name, but I’ll be damned if the scruffy, gin-blossomed, gravel-voiced Vietnam veteran wasn’t a ringer for Nick Nolte playing a Nam burnout. He wore mirror shades and ratty field jacket festooned with medals and POW/MIA buttons. He complained that the thunder erupting from the building’s boiler at night gave him jungle flashbacks. There are cliches and there are cliches. Beyond the impossibility of his extreme Nolte-ness and 1,000 yard silences, the man was really suffering. One time he lifted his shades to show me.

    Yesterday I was shocked to see Nolte again, up on the big screen in Tropic Thunder. This was my Nolte. A Nam vet whose acclaimed book of war stories inspires a cash-in film adaptation, the character played by Real Nolte emerges on the troubled set like Quint in Jaws, leading our comic heroes not out to sea but into the heart of darkness. In a shot mournfully photographed by John Toll, Nolte stares out at the jungle mists from a mountain perch and answers a query about a weapon with, “I don’t know what it’s called, but I know the sound that it makes when it takes a man’s life.” It’s like, out of nowhere, ten seconds of Malick or Herzog. Later on, Nolte’s heart-of-darkness act and its function in American mythology get deconstructed (or demolished) like Warren Beatty’s frontier pimp in McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

    So, if Nolte was up there in the movie, where was Playbwoy? Playbwoy was the nickname I secretly gave to another Nam vet shelter resident, a black man who admired my black shoes: “Back in Nam we wore those, called ‘em Playbwoys.” Playbwoy definitely had the jive poetry but not the conflicted perspective on the war of Robert Downey Jr.’s character’s character. When we discussed the Iraq War, Playbwoy would complain that its failure was the same as Vietnam’s failure: “They send us in there, then they won’t let us take the gloves off. The other dude, he got his gloves off, day one. If you wanna win the damn thing, you got to fight same way they fight.” I wasn’t so surprised to hear Donald Rumsfeld’s old rationale for a reckless war on terror coming from a Nam combat veteran, because roughly half of the men I’ve spoken with who actually fought on the ground made similar comments.

    Of course, Tropic Thunder isn’t really a war satire but a sendup of war movies and Ho’wood politics– not liberal/conservative (despite Ben Stiller’s Save the Pandas and adoption crusades or the set pyro expert’s jingo-nihilism) so much as the intramural politics of agent-director-star-mogul power plays. The film makes it clear that no one onscreen has any more of a grasp of geo-political/historical doings than, say, the Quentin Tarantino who once noted that the 9/11 plot was a stale ripoff of an earlier action movie. Stiller and his co-screenwriter, the actor Justin Theroux (veteran of David Lynch’s showbiz surgeries Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire) are savvy enough to guide their satiric missiles at nothing of any relevance to the current military quagmire.

    Tropic Thunder works best as a (rather late) indication of the future of film criticism and cultural commentary in general: film. Stiller has trod this turf before with The Cable Guy, which donned the skin of the very beast it loathed (A.D.H.D. cable TV culture) and played it as thoroughly, as absurdly as Downey’s T.T. character does the black thing. Now in the Blu-Ray/DVR era (beyond the cable era’s channel surfing into absolute random access madness), Stiller does such a thorough job of replication that there’s no distinguishing between the real pre-show trailers and the fake ones that open Tropic Thunder. The Fatties: Fart Two looks no less insipid than Eagle Eye or Disaster Movie.

    The Village Voice’s Robert Willonsky is dead right that Tropic Thunder amounts to little more than Stiller “nibbling gently at the soft, manicured hands that feed him.” Stiller’s old satirical TV show and The Cable Guy may mark him as a pioneer of some sort, but his industry sanction, hookups and increasing budgets insure that the nibbling will only get softer. The real insurgency has been going on for years, on YouTube and other outlets, by filmmakers who understand Ho’wood’s follies just as intimately but have nothing to lose by rendering them in merciless detail. The only insider who would have dared is another shaggy Nolte lookalike, long dead: Hal Ashby.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Banana Express. Clip of the Day

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Dark Knight  (2008)

    Trailer remakes seem to be all the rage now — the Dark Knight with kids clip I posted last month is getting a lot of mileage lately — and this week Indy Mogul premiered its parody of the full Pineapple Express trailer, for a fake movie titled “Banana Express.” Here’s the quick synopsis: a gorilla (Seth Rogen) and his banana dealer (James Franco) go on the run after the former witnesses a zookeeper murdering a fellow gorilla.

    It may not be the funniest thing you see this week, but you have to give them credit for attempting to “ape” the Pineapple Express trailer shot for shot (Indy Mogul links to the original trailer and welcomes you to compare the two videos) and for including their own parody of M.I.A.’s “Paper Planes” titled “Banana Peels & Bombs”, which can be downloaded from Indymogul.com. Think you could do better? In 36 hours? I’m anxious to see other trailer remakes and parodies, so bring ‘em on.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Vicky Cristina Barcelona: In Defense of Late Woody Allen

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Annie Hall  (1977)

    Anything Else  (2003)

    To be fair: Vicky Cristina Barcelona may not need my defense. Since its debut at Cannes, it has garnered some of the most positive reviews of Woody Allen’s late career. But it’s always with that caveat: it’s the best he’s done for us lately. At this point, it seems like the critical class is expected to disclaim their vitriol or praise, no matter what Allen actually puts on the screen, or which way it swings. Is it good? Well, it’s not as good as Annie Hall, but it’s not bad. Is it bad? Well, it’s not as bad as Anything Else, but it’s not good. As you might have guessed, I think Woody Allen has produced some work over the past 15 years (since the Soon-Yi “scandal”, which more or less dovetailed with the consensus opinion that his “best years” were long behind him) that is worthy of more serious consideration. But even if I didn’t think the movies deserved it, the sheer laziness that the movies seem to inspire in critics would almost give me enough incentive to passionately defend them.

    To go micro before going macro: the worst thing that you can say about Vicky Cristina Barcelona is that it’s exceedingly pleasant, that it has the overall effect of a late summer, late afternoon nap. And sure, maybe, if you were inclined, it would be possible to write it all off as soft core bicurious semi-erotica (and full-on bicurious travel erotica). But I sense that Allen––if no one else––earnestly believes he’s doing more, that even in his lightest mode, he’s deeply concerned with the nagging mysteries of human relationships. Might it be creepy-old-man-ism that requires him to ask two beautiful actresses to kiss each other in an attempt to figure these mysteries out? It might be, but Woody Allen’s been a creepy old man since he was 35. To convince me that he’s totally lost it, you’re going to have to come up with better evidence than that.


    The plot of Vicky Cristina –– like those of Melinda and Melinda and Match Point, the two Late Allen films it most resembles –– is barely more than a mechanism on which to hang Allen’s endless skepticism. Vicky (Rebecca Hall, a British girl doing naive but well-meaning Upper West Side academic) is going to Spain for the summer to stay with a family friend and work on a grad school thesis. It’s Vicky’s last summer before she gets married, and where another girl might be a bit more concerned with making the most of the last months of her sexual freedom, Vicky seems more preoccupied with the notion that the thesis represents her last chance at intellectual self-indulgence before her very sensible fiancee knocks her up and all vestiges of her identity as an independent woman must be put away. Vicky’s last minute escort on the trip is Cristina (Scarlett Johansson), a wild child ball of blonde hair and bad decisions, who tags along to Barcelona to escape a bad break-up with hopes of finding her calling as an old-world romantic-creative.

    Thanks mainly to Cristina’s predatory eyes, the girls soon meet a painter, Juan Antonio, who they’ve heard has a torrid history with an ex-wife (Penelope Cruz). They let this smoldering artist at least 15 years their senior fly them to his hometown of Oviedo regardless of Vicky’s objections, and there the eager-to-bed Cristina comes down with food poisoning, leaving Vicky fall into Juan Antonio’s arms. But once the trio returns to Barcelona, order is restored: Juan and Cristina embark on the flagrantly cliche February-July muse-master relationship that always seemed in the cards, and Vicky dives back into her work and wedding plans. The status quo is interrupted once again when Juan Antonio’s ex-wife Maria-Elena re-enters the picture, she and Cristina first fight over and then figure out a way to happily share the lucky Spaniard, and, as she continues to be haunted by a night that seems “unreal”, Vicky starts to wonder if her entire life plan is ill-conceived.

    If this sounds familiar, well, maybe we’ve hit on one of Late Allen’s easiest targets for criticism. Over and over again in this late career stretch, he’s rehearsing variations on the same preccupations: romance is fleeting, meaning and passion are both subjective and fluid; fate and luck are, in practice, basically the same thing; there are two types of fear: fear to act on our desires, and fear to do anything but. As Bardem’s character puts it at one point: “The trick is to enjoy life, and accept that it has no meaning.” This could be a direct quote from a number of recent Allen interviews, and it’s a sign of how seriously he’s invested in the essential existential question of the material: If none of it matters anyway, is it best to live impulsively and suffer disappointment, or take the safe, no thrills route, forsaking the manic highs in order to avoid the lowest lows?

    Another potentially valid, but only if unexamined, points of criticism almost always directed at Late Allen: in order to explore his pet themes from a distance, he seems to want to make his characters as shallow as possible. Speaking their lines with a flatness that almost approaches a read-aloud from high school English class, crowded into going through the motions of the dictates of an all-seeing narrator, the actors’ characterizations are, almost by default, mainly surface. Cruz has to do little more than look comfortable in the markedly “ethnic,” bag lady slut chic in which she’s dressed in order to put across Maria-Elena as an icon of the Scary/Sexy Exotic; Johansson, done up like a summer Gap ad loosely based on …And God Created Woman, basically just has to show up and Allen has the Narcissist Heartbreaker he needs in order to define, by contrast, Hall’s Frustrated Realist.

    (For all of the prudish questioning of the propriety of the Allen/ScarJo relationship, Vicky Cristina is evidence that Allen’s leering is at least a means to an end. Despite the limits of her character, Johansson is more present on screen here than I’ve seen her since Lost in Translation. He may love her, but up til now, Woody Allen has misused her. Here, she plays her age and, for the first time I can think of, a character whose inner and outer lives both seem organically compatible with the unconscious carnality the actress herself exudes. And someday entire grad school thesis will be written about the way Allen shoots every sex scene that she’s in, in extreme, soft focus closeup on her head, letting the camera drift to concentrate on her blonde hair spilling out of control to consume the frame.)

    Rather than fault Allen for blatantly eschewing a realism that I don’t think was ever on his agenda to begin with, I think there’s something interesting about the falseness of it all–the unnecessary, didactic narration, the cliche personalities crashing into one another, and the very, very minor fissures that result. His point is taken: nothing ultimately, means anything, but in the moment, we forget that, and become convinced that inconsequential matters mean the world. Vicky Cristina Barcelona may be frivolous, but under the surface there’s a serious pondering of how the most frivolous things can temporarily cloud brains and hold otherwise reasonable people hostage, of how even a momentary giving over to impulse can slip an unignorable pea under the mattress of the best laid plans, of how sometimes functioning facades are shattered by a single slip of judgement over the course of a single night.

    Above all else, Vicky Cristina reveals that Allen is developing a late career style of distant, extremely expository satire of romantic givens. The American girls, smart and experienced though they think they are and even might be, are reduced to fools by their attraction to the Spanish painter. They remain consumed with the question of what their dalliances mean, convinced they must mean something, even after he’s told them repeatedly that nothing means anything. This is insanity defined—holding onto faith that something is true when all evidence would mark it as false–and it’s this lust-bred insanity that’s the more precise Allen theme than the oft-cited neorosis. In Vicky Cristina, as the events play out in a tone pitched about ten degrees closer to comedy than tragedy, Allen mocks his girls for their illusions–harshly, at times, but not without sympathy. He’s been there.

    Call it autopilot, call it barrel scraping, but I believe he’s still really baffled about various unsolvable mysteries of human nature. The benefit of age may be that he’s finally boiled his issues down from prickly, all-encompassing nuerosis, into an almost elegantly restricted package of major questions about human nature that, after nearly 73 years on the planet, he still can’t figure out. And even if these later films themselves are inconsistently moving, I’m touched by the gesture itself, the taking stock of one’s own life-long search for meaning, the mistakes made along the way, and the frustrations of coming up empty. Whether hidden under sultry sun or cold British class conflict or the pretenses of New York intelligencia, there are traces in all of Allen’s later films of unforgiving moral comedowns, as could only be conjured by someone whose own moral stumbles have gone largely unforgiven.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog