Midnight in the Garden of "Manhattan" (1979) ?

Rating: 2/10 (21 December 2011)

It begins as a low-end travel agency commercial, with irritating jazzy music (that's out of place, in my experience). Then we see Owen Wilson as the latest Woody "stand in." And then we are exposed to the usual self-absorbed individuals (in Allen films) who think they are special. Aren't these the kinds of people you don't want to spend any time with if you can avoid doing so? If not, perhaps this movie is for you! It's almost like Woody doesn't understand that society is not exactly the same as it was (for him if nobody else) in the 60s or 70s. In the age of the mortgage crisis and the destruction of the American middle class, this movie is a proverbial rubbing of salt in the wounds of the injured ! We soon learn that a screenwriter wants to give up his career because he has visions of being a "starving artist" in Paris. Why? If you are going to present this idea at a time like now, you need to supply some back story. I'm wondering what's going on in Woody's mind. Does he enjoy spending his time with such obnoxious individuals (that is, just about everyone in this film), or is he trying to torture those who still go to see his films? A major problem is the sympathy factor, which is that if you present us with a bunch of obnoxious people, why should we care what happens to them? And why should we continue to watch the film? After the first fifteen minutes, it became like bad background music to me.
But then we are transported back to the "roaring twenties." So now we have a "time machine" thing going on, somewhat reminiscent of "The Purple Rose of Cairo." What's interesting is how this undermines the film entirely, because it points to how bound to a particular cultural milieu most of us are (perhaps all of us are but not all of us can admit it). For example, how many of you can imagine Allen at an Occupy Wall Street protest (just one!), or even a Tea Party one? He's still living with childhood notions he was exposed to in the 40s and 50s, and his young adult musings and disappointments of the 60s and 70s, apparently. Overall, this movie reminded me most of the Carousel of Progress attraction at Disney World (last time I was there was in the early 1980s), and not a serious film.
If you can't bring yourself to say it, I will say it for you; I am done with Allen. And I am willing to admit that when I was younger I looked down upon friends who weren't interested in his movies. The neurotic "every man" (who also doesn't seem to exist in my experience) is of no interest, other than psychologically. To some degree, I found this film depressing, like going to a gallery opening and realizing that the work of the artist being displayed demonstrates that he is clearly past his prime, and that he is searching, unsuccessfully, to try to be "new" and "fresh." Allen seems to lack cinematic empathy; everyone is seen through the eyes of the main character, who may deserve the "problems" he faces, for all we know. Ask yourself, what if Woody had lost all his money in a Madoff-like Ponzi scheme in 2008? Would he have made this film (assuming he could get funding) a year or two later? I really wonder if he can't address socio-economic issues (beyond having one of his obnoxious characters make an obnoxious remark about them) because he thinks he is far superior to the "little people" of the world.
And what is the "underlying message" here? That one should live in one's own time? Does one have a choice? If you are a multi-millionaire like Allen perhaps you do! The rest of us have plenty of "reality" to deal with that is of this time. But putting that aside, Allen seems to have been trying to be "cute," allowing a person of today who is captivated by a Parisian "golden age" to meet the famous people of that age in person via a time travel conceit. This might have worked, at least to some degree, if the Wilson character had some of his illusions shattered by meeting these "greats" in person. Instead, the interactions are very soft and uninteresting. This film has the appearance of being made by someone who was able to do whatever he wanted, and was not willing to accept any criticism (and certainly had no interest in seeking any). Nice "work" if you can get it !
But let me end this with a critique that is "universal." As I mentioned above, I want to know the main characters' back story when I see a film. Otherwise, for all we know, the Wilson character is basically immature and not ready for a relationship. Allen doesn't seem to know how to do back story, from what I've seen, but he certainly must understand the concept. If you want people to think of you as a "professional," if not a "great," then you should work on your weaknesses, but he has not, despite the huge number of films he has made. Because of this, he basically creates films that are variations on a theme, and all with the same glaring flaws. I wonder if he thinks he is doing "something important" or if he is "just going through the motions" to make money. The flaws are not an issue in a fast-paced, silly/absurd comedy like "Love and Death," nor in "Annie Hall," which contained plenty of good comedy (of different kinds), and had a compelling main character who was rather simple, though genuine, namely Annie (whose family we got to see), and therefore requires less of a back story. She was the best "every man" in any Allen film, though he keeps wanting his audiences to view him that way.