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.

[–] ath-11 12 years ago

Umm, the museum guide? The chick selling Cole Porter records? (both of whom were ultra hot) They were most definitely proletarians.

-----------

"...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped."

[–] BellaBitch 12 years ago

Well I couldn't exactly relate to the plot line of The Little Mermaid, but that didn't make the film "bad."

The characters are relatable in other ways. Emotionally, Gil is looking for happiness. That's something we can relate to, whether or not having his money or his career would make up happy already. Not to mention, there might be a bit of a "money can't buy happiness" lesson in there as well.

[–] iamjohnsname 12 years ago

there might be a bit of a "money can't buy happiness" lesson in there as well.

You're right. I do feel as though that's part of Allen's point: Gil chooses to remain in Paris, giving up his (horrendously annoying) wife and a well paying job. However I also feels it reiterates my point that this is written by a man with enough wealth to make that choice. It is only because of Gil's comfortable wealth that he is able to stay in Paris. He is basically retiring from screenwriting (at about 40 years old or so) to walk the streets of Paris and write a novel. So I see the ending as showing that money does indeed buy happiness.

Sooner or later, everyone needs a haircut.

[–] Kariann1 12 years ago

I am retired and sometimes struggle, but I found MiP to be a wonderful film. Perhaps not being able to afford packing up and leaving for Paris may have entered my mind, but the cultural and intellectual aspects were stimulating. Some people may not have recognized the 1920's characters, but I loved knowing a bit about each of them. I did an essay on Josephine Baker's life and was eagerly awaiting her appearance. I would have liked more of an acknowledgement, but at least Woody put her there - in Paris.

I would say being educated is more important than being rich.

[–] sbowesuk 12 years ago

So I see the ending as showing that money does indeed buy happiness.

Then you've missed the point of the ending. He could have decided to stay even if he wasn't as wealthy. I know many people who did what he did who weren't wealthy at all.

[–] sbowesuk 12 years ago

Ask yourself, is this movie really about wealth, or is it in fact about achievement. The answer should be obvious.

Furthermore, the only main characters in this movie who truly flaunted their wealth were the those from 2010 such as Inez, her family, and Paul. It wasn't hard to find them detestable and shallow.

Oh and one other thing. The only person you could see who worked was the detective? Your observational skills are quite frankly lacking. How about the museum guide, and the blonde girl from the shop? I guess you ignored them so you could whine about the 1%.

[–] Dr_Edison 12 years ago

if woody made films about working class people he would be criticized for writing out of his element and giving a poor and deluded representation. when he writes about a class he knows, he takes guff for being elitist or whatever.

no wonder the guy doesn't read reviews and commentary, in a lot of circumstances he can't win.

Come to the board for Jon Vitti!
http://imdb.com/name/nm0900140/board/threads/

[–] moezeus 12 years ago

I remember reading an interview with Allen years ago where he addressed this very subject. He said the reason he writes about these sorts of people is because this is the world he lives in.

I also might mention that he does not portray these people as very sympathetic characters, and he often displays a considerable amount of contempt for them.

All those lines relating to the fiance you mentioned were designed to do just that: we are intended to see her as a horrible and superficial cow.

I find it difficult to watch some of these characters myself, but I do not believe that Woody Allen is making his films for the 1%.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DocBludgeon 12 years ago

Contempt indeed. The parents are virtually lampooned for their snobbish behavior. eg. the father repeatedly looking over his shoulder in disapproval of the table behind them having their dog to lunch; the mother's several uses of "cheap is cheap". The scene in which Gil puts the pedant in his place ("...she was an absolute volcano in the sack") kills me every time.

Some friends have commented that they wished the knew more about the historical characters, but I don't think that's necessary. Some are very familiar, and the other can easily be deduced from the context. And Adrian Brody's portrayal of Dali is enjoyable regardless of how well you know the artist.

If anything, MiP is written for anyone who shares pangs of nostalgia similar to Gil which, given the struggles and angst synonymous with any period, is not restricted to any one class.

[–] wuyuni 12 years ago

Whatever people see will be what they see based on their experience, what's on their mind and so on. I simply viewed it as a fantasy anyone might have rich or poor not thinking about the 99 or 1%. I think anyone can relate to the film just because everyone at some point in life wants to have a different life experience.

I don't even see the reality scene as fantasy. To me the characters had rich but empty lives with troubling relationship issues. They seemed quite miserable to me. All the artists of the past had their own miseries to deal with. The Lost Generation had money but also suffered from boredom, alienation from reality and so on.

So yeah, it never even occurred to me to question who the movie is for or whether it was appropriate. You just need to accept the fact that the suffering of the poor is not on every director's mind. That's like watching an exciting action film and wonder why they don't feature reality that is usually filled with hours of sitting-on-the desk work, our lack of physical movement, ignoring gun violence issues and so on.

For me, the movie was for anyone with appreciation of history and culture and the figures featured in the film. It really brought back the lessons I had in high school reading about the Great Gatsby, Hemingway's short stories, hearing about the Roaring 20s, and marveling at seeing my favorite artists portrayed by current actors. Yes you can argue caring about art and culture, doing pompous parties is such a rich thing to do, and the main character is having rich people's problem but why not let yourself marvel? There are other movies made in Hollywood by rich production companies.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] red_barchetta 12 years ago

a movie by rich people about rich people for...poets.

[–] katentek 12 years ago

I tend to agree with the OP but have to add that many Hollywood films are like that.

"Science is the poetry of reality." Richard Dawkins