MovieChat Forums > Midnight in Paris (2011) Discussion > A movie by rich people about rich people...

A movie by rich people about rich people for... who exactly?

posted 12 years ago by iamjohnsname
96 replies | jump to latest

As I watched this movie it occurred to me that no one (except the detective) works in this movie.

Everyone is rich enough to be able to go to Paris with friends and family for a while. Her parents are there on business so they decide to tag along. A decision that for most families would depend on a year of saving the income left over after the repayments are made.

But Owen Wilson plays Gil, a wealthy screenwriter who lives in Beverley Hills. The wealth is not incidental but is in fact impressed upon us: When he sees the old car for the first time, he mentions a friend from Beverley Hills who collects antique cars, he and his fiancé meet their friends in Paris and the woman carries an enormous Dior shopping bag; his fiancé and her mother look at wedding bands in a storefront: "Diamonds for wedding band - it's the way you have to go." When an earring goes missing, the blame falls on the maid; "It's always the maid," says the mother. When Gil sticks up for her, his fiancé says "you're always sticking up for the help."

Even though the main character needs to retreat to fantasy to find happiness, even the reality scenes are a fantasy for most of us. Only in my imagination could I "decide to stay in Paris" to dedicate myself to creativity and experiencing culture. Because I have to go to work every day.

I am surprised at the positive reception to this film. Not because it's bad. It's enjoyable in many ways which I won't argue about, but it is so specifically a movie about the 1%, made during a time when the 99% are pretty vocal. And I'm surprised that the 99% didn't object to this movie more.

So to me, this is a movie made by rich people about rich people. And ultimately I feel it is for rich people. In fact, the only character we see working, the detective, ends up doomed because of his job. "Off with his head!" is the last line we hear about him. If only he had skipped work that night, he might have been ok.

Clearly, these are people who have better things to do than work, and are rich enough to make that choice.

Sooner or later, everyone needs a haircut.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] StrayCat1000 12 years ago

As one of the 1% I can say that most of "us" would love to be one of "them!"

care to share a l'il bit and/or trade??? lol can ensure you'll be very comfortable~ :)

[–] ron-ridley 12 years ago

If the offer to "share a l'il bit and/or trade" is still good, then as one of the 99% I would like to take you up on it. I can ensure that you'll learn to look at life differently~ :)

[–] StrayCat1000 12 years ago

Thought you're one of the 1%!!!

[–] ron-ridley 8 years ago

Gotya!

[–] bluefellow 12 years ago

I don't follow the logic that because most of the characters happen to be wealthy the movie is for rich people. Their wealth is inconsequential except for the fact that it allows them to spend an extended time in Paris.

"I don't want any Commies in my car. No Christians, either."

[–] iamjohnsname 12 years ago

The "rich" learned their lessons, the "poor, working stiff" got the girl and remained in Paris to write. He got his dream.

You're right about the second part. He got to quit his job and live a life of leisure. But the first part is inaccurate. He wasn't a "poor, working stiff", he was a well paid screenwriter whose income was so great that it afforded him the opportunity to basically retire to Paris.

This film was fun. It gave me a great year's worth of literature and art ideas...

I totally agree. It was not a bad movie, it just struck me as strangely targeted at an audience who are wealthy and has enough money that the characters' decisions seemed reasonable. Because I am a working stiff, I could never make any of those decisions. Hence, the characters were totally unrelatable to me. Which sort of addresses this question too:

I don't follow the logic that because most of the characters happen to be wealthy the movie is for rich people.

As I said above, their wealth allows the characters the luxury to make choices that I (and 99% of people) have no means to make. I guess I see that as meaning that the only audience members who can relate to these characters are the 1% of people who are equally well off.

I'm not suggesting that te rest of us can't enjoy it too, just that I didn't find any of the characters relatable (except the detective who ends up condemned to die because of his work ethic).

Sooner or later, everyone needs a haircut.

[–] Shimmer_Me_Timbers 10 years ago

I'm far from rich, I work hard and I've never been outside of the US, but I am educated. I enjoyed seeing some of the greatest artists and American writers of the 1920s. And I thought it was kind of cool that they all really did hang out and party with each other in Paris. (I was super excited about F. Scott Fitzgerald because the Great Gatsby is one of my favorite books).

I'm pretty sure that Gil worked his way up from nothing (based on how he almost had a heart attack when he went furnature shopping with Inez and her mom with those ugly 40 thousand dollar chairs.) That's why Inez's mom keeps saying "Cheap is cheap".

[–] mark-hansen11 10 years ago

The movie was not about money. The family simply needed to have some money to drive the plot forward effectively. For example during chair-shopping, over $20k is of course absurd for a chair (or was it for both? not that it matters). It is a ploy to contrast Gil's idealism, romanticism with the seemingly superficial & materialistic approach to life that his wife and her parents share.

Given the film's reception, I assume the average viewer has no issue watching a movie without thinking about money if that has nothing to do with what the movie is telling you. Obviously, you have trouble doing so. Nothing wrong with that, but it does render a lot of movies unrelateable to you. When watching Batman movies, do you constantly think about the costs of the batterangs he throws? You can't watch Fast and Furious because you can't relate to the way they live their life?

Focus on what the movie is saying and what it is using to say it, not the insignificant details.

Think about it.

[–] 65tbird 12 years ago

And, spend that time in Hotel Le Bristol where the rooms are between $1000 and $10,000 a night! No less.
Also, Woody Allen stayed in that actual hotel every day of the movie being made - at that cost each day!, (and I doubt he had that cheapest $1000 level room.)

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] toast-15 12 years ago

I will preface this by saying I have not yet seen this movie but plan to do so very soon. (I have learned to go to IMDB and read the posts about any prospective movies so I can weed out those that would seem to be a waste of time for me). Having said that I will just reference what you have stated in your post as the context for my reply. I do not believe that this movie is only by and for the 1%. It sounds like the character in this movie had a pretty shallow and self absorbed fiance which made it easier for the audience to identify and side with the protagonist. Sometimes in life you can have those moments when you realize that the path you've chosen is the wrong path. If you realize this before it's too late, you can change your destiny. That can happen whether you are in the 1% or the 99%. If my interpretation of this movie is correct, the protagonist changed his life path before it was too late. It sounds like he would have been profoundly unhappy had he married his fiance.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

OP: you make good points but I feel a little sad that this was what you took from the film. By the end it's obvious that the existence Gil is choosing will leave him with little money and the woman he ends up with is not wealthy either. There is too much warmth in the film for it to be exclusive to a very small sector of society and the extravagance we see on display is not from people who are the 1%. Inez and her family are wealthy but not in that bracket that would make them exclusive.

my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ish

[–] ericsinla 12 years ago

I agree with the last post. This movie is ultimatly a fantasy/comedy! Most people who see the film do not take that from it at all.

[–] Krustallos 12 years ago

the extravagance we see on display is not from people who are the 1%.

Generally I agree with you, but on this point I think you're wrong. You don't actually need that much wealth to get you into the 1% - an income of $386k is the threshold - and I think Inez' family are quite likely in that bracket.

I'm a bit bemused by the OP though. Who comes to a Woody Allen film looking for Ken Loach style social realism? It's not really what he does.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

If the threshold is that low (really?) then perhaps they are part of the 1% but I find it hard to believe that anything less than a million would make anyone on the planet part of the 1%.

Agree with you re-the OP's attitude towards Allen and his films.

my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ish

[–] Krustallos 12 years ago

Yes, I did quite a lot of searching to get that figure, finally got it from the NY Times website I think it was. 1% is 3 million Americans after all, well over a million households - that would be a lot of people to be making more than a million a year.

In fact it's the 0.1% who have the REAL money, but the 1% are doing more than well enough not to want to rock the boat.

Of course, this is annual income I'm talking about, not total wealth.

If we're talking planet-wide, the threshold figure would be a lot lower, given the huge numbers of people who exist on practically nothing.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

[–] greenegg 12 years ago

I must respectfully disagree with your definition of a 1%er; I read the article that suggests the $386k threshold, which smacks of Koch brothers propaganda. I have a relative who is much wealthier than that, but who would still not qualify as a 1%er. Most of us think of 1%ers as the people who sit atop the lists of the wealthiest people, as well as pay off legislators to create laws meant to protect their wealth through corporate welfare, breaking the now weakened anti-monopoly laws (Bill Gates/Microsoft), tax loopholes, etc. Most of these people park millions or more in offshore accounts, as well to avoid taxes. I'm thinking of people such as the Koch brothers, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Warren Buffett, though not all of them use their wealth to harm the 99%. Inez's family would likely not qualify as 1%ers.

Politics aside, I don't like any obnoxious people, no matter what their tax bracket. My objection to recent Woody Allen films has been all the repetition.

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!

[–] Krustallos 12 years ago

greenegg, there can only be one definition of a 1%-er. It's simple maths. 1% is one hundredth of the whole. So if there are 300 million Americans, the 3 million with the most wealth are the 1%. Hence the $386k income threshold.

I agree that people use the term sloppily to denote the super-rich, but those people are actually way less than 1%. I suggested 0.1% in my post but the Kochs, Waltons etc are actually in the top 0.0001%

Which should of course make it even easier for the rest of us to overpower and disarm them, but false consciousness is an incredibly powerful force.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

[–] BlackiesDad 9 years ago

Fun fact - the girl that Gil ends up with is played by, I believe, a Schlumberger heiress.

[–] bnvbe 12 years ago

I came away from this movie with a very similar impression to the OP. I think that the main reason why you could say it is FOR rich people is because of the subject matter of the movie: literature, art, romanticism.

Consider this:

When Liberal Arts as a field of study began, it was exclusively for the wealthy. Working class people pursuing higher education had to study things that directly translated into employment. Only the wealthy could indulge themselves by studying literature, art, music, or theater. Modern society has made experiencing these things easier for the masses. Motion pictures, television, public libraries, CDs, the internet and the like have made consumption of art much more cheap and accessible than in the olden days.

However, nowadays wealth still makes it easier to participate in the arts. Rich people have the time to read classic novels because they can just have the nanny watch the kids. Rich people can fawn over expensive art because it's as easy to decorate their walls with that as it is to buy a $10 print that looks just as nice. Rich people can romanticize living in a city like Paris, whereas most people have to think about job availability, school systems, proximity to family(trips back and forth to Europe aren't cheap).

When it comes down to it, the movie studio targeted an artsy movie towards those who would best relate: rich people.

[–] pacwarbuff 12 years ago

Doesn't anyone here ever watch old movies? Keep in mind that in the "Golden Age" of Hollywood movies--the 1930s--which Woody has long professed to love, often featured impossibly wealthy characters living in glorious penthouses, taking ocean liners to Europe, dressing in evening gowns and tuxedos, dining in the finest establishments, with all of this happening during the depths of the Great Depression of the 1930s. If audiences could forget their economic woes by watching the impossibly rich--and wacky, if it was a Screwball Comedy--then we today can watch and enjoy this same fantasy. Woody has always loved the fantasy elements of films, and he revisits this yet again in Midnight in Paris.

[–] Fairyangel24 12 years ago

I was just about to make this point, but saw that you already did. People like a little escapist entertainment. So many movies that came out in the 30s were about wealthy people. People like to dream about what it's like to be rich. Just because someone's poor doesn't mean that they want to watch a movie about another poor, struggling person.

[–] pacwarbuff 10 years ago

Another poster and I have already explained this but apparently it just isn't understood by some here, so I'll post those succinct, coherent thoughts once more:

Doesn't anyone here ever watch old movies? Keep in mind that in the "Golden Age" of Hollywood movies--the 1930s--which Woody has long professed to love, often featured impossibly wealthy characters living in glorious penthouses, taking ocean liners to Europe, dressing in evening gowns and tuxedos, dining in the finest establishments, with all of this happening during the depths of the Great Depression of the 1930s. If audiences could forget their economic woes by watching the impossibly rich--and wacky, if it was a Screwball Comedy--then we today can watch and enjoy this same fantasy. Woody has always loved the fantasy elements of films, and he revisits this yet again in Midnight in Paris.

and...

BTW: During and when the Country was recovering from the Depression, Films about "The Rich" and Musicals were all the rage. It seemed that the public couldn't get enough of RICH PEOPLE sitting around their Art Deco apartments and sipping Martinis... go figure.

[–] Iberian_Wolf 12 years ago

are you serious?

Rich people have the time to read classic novels because they can just have the nanny watch the kids

how about read a classic INSTEAD of being in front of the computer on Facebook?
even better, read to your kids.
Read classics instead of getting wasted at some sleezy bar, friday night.
Spend money on books instead of burning euros, dollars (whatever) in smokes.
(i don't smoke, so i have that "extra" cash to spend by the end of the month)

Rich people can fawn over expensive art because it's as easy to decorate their walls with that as it is to buy a $10 print that looks just as nice

true, richer or wealthier ppl can afford to buy original art work.

it's as easy to decorate their walls with that as it is to buy a $10 print that looks just as nice.

I wish that was true, but they never look "just as nice"... wish my Dalí prints looked that way, but they don't.

Rich people can romanticize living in a city like Paris

Have you ever been to Paris? it's not just lights and glamour you know, it's a normal European Capital...the historical areas are pricy but the rest has its share of midleclass, poor ppl, and ilegals. Not so long ago (maybe still) they had a major problem with imigrants occupying (blocking) streets at prayer time.
You do see the more-than-ocasional hobbo trying to sleep on a corner at later hours...or even inside the ATM "cabin"

I am NOT rich, i'm midle-class from Portugal, I don't have expensive art work in my house, I do read/buy classics, I do enjoy art and I go to Paris anually because i really like that city.
I enjoyed this movie, not being rich didn't prevent me to understand it, and to recognize the historical characters and their manerisms and I did relate to it.

even with kids, there is nothing that can't prevent you from saving money for a while (1,2 or more years) and spend some time in a city you dream about.
you can't afford a 5 stars Hotel, well go for a 2 stars or 3. so you cant afford to eat every day of your tripp at the Procope, well then don't...go there once or dont go at all.

you don't need to go to the Moulin Rouge every night to enjoy the boheme life style.

sorry, I don't know you and either do I have the right to make assumptions on your personal life choices but im tired of ppl calling rich to every1 who chooses to invest their money in culture.

maybe it's because I haven't had my coffee yet
cheers

[–] WHakan 12 years ago

I really enjoyed reading your post.

[–] katentek 12 years ago

Panicador, In reference to your remarks regarding prints being as good as the originals;

I wish that was true, but they never look "just as nice"... wish my Dalí prints looked that way, but they don't.

I couldn't agree more ... The time I went to Paris and saw my first real Van Gough was a moment I will never forget. The vividness of the colour and the emotion the painting captured brought tears to my eyes. All my perusing of books and my posters have never done that. And seeing the real work has a powerful impact also ... Looking at a poster of the moon is not the same as looking at the moon.

"Science is the poetry of reality." Richard Dawkins

[–] greenegg 12 years ago

Thanks for an intriguing post. We live on a tight budget and have done for many years, even when we were fully employed. We lived in Metro NY for many years, first as grad students, then as a teacher and adjunct professor. Friends always criticized us because we would budget to take advantage of good theatre, fine art (museums and galleries), concerts and restaurants. So many people didn't realize you could choose to get into the Met and some other museums for a donation as low as a dollar. My partner knew how to secure house seats for many performances, as well as how to stand in the discounted ticket line or pick up two-fers at her high school in NJ.

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!

[–] xavierdragonlamas-178-423469 12 years ago

Stories can surpass their little worlds to make wider connections.; it's concerning the world Allen's familiar with, but the themes and desires are potentially universal. Anyone can feel nostalgic or romantic, and there are many in this world who consider themselves artists, myself included. I'm certainly not close to that 1%, but then neither were the audience for Midsummer Night's Dream and, the actors excepted, that walks a similar romantic/comedic line between the elite and the fantastical.

[–] chillyacademic 12 years ago

You're looking too hard into this. People don't really care about the so-called 99% vs. 1% "conflict" when watching a movie. The fact that they're richer than me doesn't mean anything. In fact sometimes it's more enjoyable to have a window into a world most of us will never experience.

Do you think people who watch Entourage feel slighted because the movie star's friends live like kings while nothing all day but mooch? I'm poor as hell yet I enjoy the show all the same.
__________________________________________

"So fair, yet so cold"

[–] iamjohnsname 12 years ago

You're looking too hard into this. People don't really care about the so-called 99% vs. 1% "conflict" when watching a movie.

I do. I enjoy movies as entertainment without there needing to be any greater signigicance, but they are nevertheless products of certain social climates or personal feelings of their creators. Like it or not. And it is up to each viewer as to how they choose to interpret each film.

Another good example of where this can have a detrimental impact on a film's enjoyment for me is Woody Allen's Whatever Works. I love that film. A lot. And I totally agree with its liberal agenda and permissive stance on all kinds of relationships. Gay, straight, groups, whatever works. But let's not forget that the guy who made this movie ran off with his then wife's adopted daughter. So sure, whatever works... but apparently, the contents of the film don't even touch the surface of what works for Allen. You know what I mean?

I'm able to look past it and enjoy the film. But the message is soured for me a little because of Allen's own history, making me think: does "whatever" work? And I enjoyed Midnight In Paris, though the message was soured because as much as I'd love to go and do what Gil does, I'm not rich.

Sooner or later, everyone needs a haircut.

[–] bluefellow 12 years ago

Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were never married.

"I don't want any Commies in my car. No Christians, either."

[–] nancynsluggo 12 years ago

I was very disappointed in this film. I was looking forward to witty repartee and interesting characters- for the most part the characters were one dimensional and I only had a few laughs (some pretty cheap). The fiancee, her family, and Paul were nothing more than caricatures and not very original ones at that. I did enjoy recognizing famous faces and commenting on how much I liked them in this or that film , tv show etc., or how much they did or did not capture the personalities for which they were cast.

The fiancee having an affiar with Pual? Not very likely, he wasn't physically atractive and as a professor no matter how pedantic he wouldn't make a quarter of the money Owen's Beverly Hills screenwriter could (unless we are to believe that Paul comes from a monied family and can indulge his many hobbies and liberal arts vocation courtesy of his ancestors).

I can't recall the British TV series in which a present day man goes through a door to the 40s and finds a happier more satisfying life there, but Midnight in Paris reminded me somewhat of this series. However the characters in the series (even the "dull" ones) had more life to them.

Just like anything tastes good when you are hungry- any place or time is more fun when you are rich. Being a rich creative dude in the 20s was a ball compared to beng a shopkeeper, farmer, factory worker or servant at the time.

All in all the film was OK to watch from my couch and it did have a few funny moments. I felt this film wa grossly over rated and was about as clever and insightful as Woody's famous statement "the heart wants what the heart wants".

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

I can't recall the British TV series in which a present day man goes through a door to the 40s and finds a happier more satisfying life there

Goodnight Sweetheart with Nicholas Lyndhurst.

my vessel is magnificent and large and huge-ish

[–] greenegg 12 years ago

Do you mean Pennies from Heaven, with Bob Hoskins? Or maybe that later series, Goodnight Sweetheart, with Nicholas Lyndhurst? I agree with you about the one-dimensional characters in the present part of MiP; after so many years, the same old Allen conversations become tiresome. You're spot on about the unlikelihood of the fiancee having an affair with the reprehensibly ignorant Paul, who didn't know what he didn't know. How could anyone confuse Rodin's wife and mistress, especially given the popularity of the film, Camille Claudel? I wanted to send him to the guillotine.

Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!

[–] chefjoseph 12 years ago

Such an ORIGINAL argument. I'm surprised that you didn't mention the "WHITE" factor as well. Such pointless over-anaylysis. I really do feel sorry for you.

Y A W N.

BTW: During and when the Country was recovering from the Depression, Films about "The Rich" and Musicals were all the rage. It seemed that the public couldn't get enough of RICH PEOPLE sitting around their Art Deco apartments and sipping Martinis... go figure.

[–] pacwarbuff 12 years ago

BTW: During and when the Country was recovering from the Depression, Films about "The Rich" and Musicals were all the rage. It seemed that the public couldn't get enough of RICH PEOPLE sitting around their Art Deco apartments and sipping Martinis... go figure.

Yeah, I already mentioned that in my previous post.