Magic in the Moonlight (Woody Allen, 2014)

[Cold Bishop]

Oh boy.

So Woody shot this in 3d?

[The Narrator Returns]

Just when you thought it couldn't get worse

[pzadvance]

There's no way the movie will make me laugh more than these designs

[swo17]

Maybe the whole movie will be them standing in that position while the background changes?

[criterion10]

That poster looked like a spoof for a moment. There's also something about the nighttime background that makes the film looks like it's a science fiction story, possibly about time travel.

[Movie-Brat]

What drug are the marketing guys on?

[The Narrator Returns]

The best punchlines always come third



(As far as the actual film, it was a fine, forgettable little trifle enlivened by great performances and wonderful cinematography courtesy of Darius Khondji. I can see why nobody was rushing to discuss it closer to when it came out.)

[criterion10]

(As far as the actual film, it was a fine, forgettable little trifle enlivened by great performances and wonderful cinematography courtesy of Darius Khondji. I can see why nobody was rushing to discuss it closer to when it came out.)

That's about accurate. Allen is one of my favorite directors, and I've always been of the belief that even his minor films, many of which have been trashed by critics and audiences alike, are fun, enjoyable excursions, and Magic in the Moonlight was no different. Having seen all of his films, I can't say there are many that I actively dislike, other than some of the early funny ones and the occasional misfire, like *shudders* Melinda and Melinda.

[domino harvey]

First of all, Melinda and Melinda is great, so how dare you. I think the reason most people haven't weighed in is that Allen films hardly scream out to be seen in a $13 movie theatre when one can wait a few months and get the same experience at home, where his small films invariably play just fine. Now, in a year's time, if no one's talking about the film, then draw conclusions

[criterion10]

First of all, Melinda and Melinda is great, so how dare you. I think the reason most people haven't weighed in is that Allen films hardly scream out to be seen in a $13 movie theatre when one can wait a few months and get the same experience at home, where his small films invariably play just fine. Now, in a year's time, if no one's talking about the film, then draw conclusions

Between my Inception comments and now this, I seem to making quite an impression on the forum these days, albeit not in a good way!

Anyhow, Magic in the Moonlight is certainly one of Allen's least essential to see in theaters, so the low box office and lack of reception here doesn't surprise me. Although, as The Narrator Returns claimed, the cinematography is pretty great, so it has that going for it.

[Dylan]

I personally thought this was wonderful and very charming. I loved how a good deal of it is about looking past logic and reason to embrace life's mysteries. Emma Stone is spectacular. I will also say without hesitation that it's the greatest-looking color film of Woody Allen's career. Every scene is full of mesmerizing imagery, the locations are spectacular, the widescreen compositions are beautiful, and Khondji's lighting can't be beat. In an interview with Stone she talks about how Khondji "basically put me in a white box of light. He took a long time to light me and I’m very grateful.” And it's clear from her first appearance that Allen and Khondji set out to make her literally glow in a very "old Hollywood" fashion.

[domino harvey]

Aaaaand another late-period masterpiece by Allen completely whizzed past the plate for most critics and viewers, again. This is not so coincidentally Allen's best film since the similarly (mis)received Cassandra's Dream, and I hope more of our board members make an effort to seek it out, because it's the most unexpected delight of the year. Many of the strengths in Magic in the Moonlight are found in the best of Allen's works, but surely, as Dylan mentions, chief amongst them is one not always given its due in his oeuvre: This is a gorgeous film (Allen's most beautiful?), with sumptuous golden-hued cinematography (in 'Scope!) that captures the lilting, twinkly beauty of the simple story told within. Emma Stone especially is given the kind of lighting (not just befitting an elephant, to steal Colin Firth's line) and glamour shots in every frame that have her coming off as a glowing reference piece for physical beauty. But beyond the aesthetic charms of the screen and its stars, the film itself is a wonderful period piece that appears for large portions to be an apologia of sorts for the atheist tone and verve of much of Allen's prior work. Indeed, this would make for apt double duty viewing with our upcoming Religion and Faith List project. What conclusions Allen reaches with regards to faith, prayer, and the spiritual world, I'll let the film itself reveal, but there's something so delightfully puckish about how Allen doubles-down on the vicious wordplay of Firth's wonderfully negative character, who is presented in the Henry Higgins mold of forthright erudite rudeness, even when his character finds himself aligned to more and more outwardly positive contributory factors in his life. It's the devilish side of Allen duking it out with the heavenly pull of a cute romantic comedy and the end result is another low-key classic for the filmography.

[The Narrator Returns]

I don't disagree with a single word of this, and yet my only lasting impression of it is "it looked real purty" (between this and The Immigrant, Khondji knows how to shoot already-beautiful women to make them as radiant as a silent movie star). I may have to give a rewatch to view it through this lens, especially considering I quite liked Cassandra's Dream.

[oh yeah]

Thanks for the writeup domino, I'm quite intrigued to see this -- partly just because I'm currently on an Allen-marathon with hopes of seeing all of his films, partly also because I find his fantastical films or ones interested in magic and magical realism tend to be my favorites.

Am I wrong, or this only WA's third film in 'Scope (the others being Manhattan and Anything Else)? Certainly there are only a tiny handful in the ratio, which is a shame because I have a thing for 2.35:1 and would love to see Allen experiment further with it.

[Dylan]

Am I wrong, or this only WA's third film in 'Scope (the others being Manhattan and Anything Else)? Certainly there are only a tiny handful in the ratio, which is a shame because I have a thing for 2.35:1 and would love to see Allen experiment further with it.

Blue Jasmine is 2.35:1 but - while nicely shot - the look of that particular film doesn't come within a mile of the beauty of Manhattan, Anything Else, or Magic in the Moonlight.

[oh yeah]

Am I wrong, or this only WA's third film in 'Scope (the others being Manhattan and Anything Else)? Certainly there are only a tiny handful in the ratio, which is a shame because I have a thing for 2.35:1 and would love to see Allen experiment further with it.

Blue Jasmine is 2.35:1 but - while nicely shot - the look of that particular film doesn't come within a mile of the beauty of Manhattan, Anything Else, or Magic in the Moonlight.

Oh, wow, thanks -- somehow I forgot that that film was 'Scope. Maybe because I found it fairly forgettable as well, formally and otherwise. I kind of wish that some of Woody's 80s work with Gordon Willis was 'Scope, because Manhattan (not to mention Willis's other stunning anamorphic 'Scope work on Klute and The Parallax View) just has such an interesting and unique sense of composition, due largely to the possibilities of the super-wide frame (e.g. the famous diptych of Hemingway lying on the couch, far screen left, while Allen descends the apartment stairs, far screen right). Anyway, one of the most laudable things about Allen's films is that, at least since Willis came on board, they've virtually always at the very least looked nice, or had a certain intelligence to the cutting and framing. Sven Nykvist, Carlo Di Palma, Darius Khondji, Zhao Fei, Harris Savides... Allen's history of DPs is interchangeable with a "greatest cinematographers of all time" list. Unfortunate that all of the above except for Fei and Khondji are no longer with us. As great as Khondji's work with Allen is, it'd be nice for him to get another master on board. Imagine an Allen film shot by Storaro, Lubezki, Larry Smith, Chris Doyle, Spinotti, Idziak, Elswit, or Deakins? Deakins would be interesting to see, and probably more likely than the others.

Edit: Not to digress further here, but as long as I'm mentioning the brilliance of Willis, I feel I must post this fantastic interview with him conducted by Steven Soderbergh a couple years ago.

[Rayon Vert]

Allen hadn’t made a near-stinker like this in a while. He returns here to the skeptic vs. spiritualism territory that’s part of the narrative in A Midsummer’s Sex Comedy, but more centrally, and shows he's done his homework when it comes to the history of mediumship. But the main theme is the same, über-predictable and hackneyed we-don’t-really-know-anything-about-the-greater-meaning-of-life-in-this-probably-absurd-universe-but-there’s-magic-in-this-little-thing-called-love theme that he’s repeated so many times before (in what? every single film maybe?).

However, the deeper fault in the film is that it falls terribly flat at some point in the middle of it, whereas up to then it had been reasonably appealing (in his late, you-take-what-you-can-get Woody Allen Lite mode sort of way). Once Colin Firth's character is swayed by Emma Stone’s skills, something happens where all narrative tension dissolves, and the rest of the film shows both Firth and Stone failing to create any sort of interest or engagement with their performances. A rare thing in an Allen film where the acting is part of the problem.

Also, the photography is that insipid, Disneyesque, soulless, pixie-dust-sprinkled look that he can get into with his recent romantic comedies (think Midnight in Paris). Remember when his films (Gordon Willis, even Di Palma) actually looked artful and had visual as well as thematic depth?

I rank it 39th in the Woody oeuvre.

[domino harvey]

Reminder that this is the guy who considers A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy Woody Allen's third best film, so the above is practically an assurance that the film in question is actually great

Also, the photography is that insipid, Disneyesque, soulless, pixie-dust-sprinkled look that he can get into with his recent romantic comedies (think Midnight in Paris). Remember when his films (Gordon Willis, even Di Palma) actually looked artful and had visual as well as thematic depth?

Yes, in Magic in the Moonlight

[Rayon Vert]

Reminder that this is the guy who considers A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy Woody Allen's third best film, so the above is practically an assurance that the film in question is actually great

"Best" is an objective qualifier. I'd say it's my third "favourite" (top five or six anyway, for sure).

This is my review of AMNSC:
More of a slightly broad romantic comedy than a sex comedy per se, but never mind. Deceptively simple, this unambitious comedy is a little jewel. Except for a conclusion and the last ten minutes or so that’s a bit of a let-down with what preceded, this is honed to near perfection. The conception and writing are clever, witty and delightful, with six solid performances, and an especially well-drawn character in the Bertrand Russell-like empirical-minded philosopher. Allen’s philosophical concerns are present, most centrally the precariousness of love between men and women, but they’re given a lighter treatment. What clinches the deal, however, is the combination of this narrative romp with the wonderful lightly soft-focus photography and the capturing of a turn-of-the-century pastoral summer’s day nature in all its exquisite, pristine beauty. A sweet film you don’t tire of rewatching.

So there.

[Tuco]

Gee, guys. I'm really looking forward to Twilight Time's release of LOVE AND DEATH. Can I just see BANANAS in blu before I die? "Help, help, I've beeeen bitten by a snake,"...

[mfunk9786]

Man oh man, such insipid dialogue between two dull leads cannot be saved by lovely photography and predictably pleasant Allen music choices. The idea that either Stone or Firth's character are remotely worthy of spending time with needs to be bought into before Magic in the Moonlight could ever possibly begin to work: and every time a joke fell flat, Stone made a smug face, or Firth whined out some complaint, I couldn't imagine any spiritual plane on which I could've bought into that.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot to mention the repetition of gags like Stone's fiancé and his serenading: it's not funny the first time, so when they're repeated they're at a hide-under-the-universe groan level. As someone who really enjoyed Scoop, another late-era, light, somewhat supernatural Allen romantic comedy was welcome, but I really didn't like this.

[knives]

I'll jump on the train with Domino and call this one of the most lasting Allen's in a while. The evolution of his relationship with religion over the decades has been fascinating with this being a very interesting move of the pawn after You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger. Particularly the prayer scene shows a nervous self awareness on the topic Allen hasn't dared before. Without a doubt the most daring film he's made in a while.

[therewillbeblus]

This only gets better with more revisits. The slow unraveling of Allen's rigid atheism towards a form of humility that acknowledges his narrowness in focus is noted, even if he is also humble enough to know he can't make himself change his own mind. There's a gentle embrace in that concession of his own limitations. However, the film's greatest strength is how Allen also turns the tables to reflect the inflexibility of religion at capturing the vague inclusivity of spirituality, by finding it in love. Love and attraction are Allen's God, a magnetic passion that has consumed his world for his entire life, that's he's tried to make sense of through tangible rationales like sex drives- but that can't account for the enigmatic spiritual component that doesn't have (or, as this film explores, need) an explanation to be felt, and thus is just as real as science. Firth, like Allen, can take a leap of faith and resign the intellectual stiffness that blocks his ability to give himself over to this optimal reason to live. If God is love, which many people believe, that may just be a definition Allen can get behind for a moment. It's a complex and elastic vision of spirituality that allows for a middle ground of agnosticism, rejecting absolute strict religiosity but welcoming the unknown as-is without trying to be God himself.

As usual, Emma Stone's natural humility and authenticity earns that trust, intimacy, and change in worldview- as love tends to do. From one fellow Hobbesian-in-remission to another, I can cosign Firth's subtle growth from static myopia, but also validate its core since the discomfort of mystery is rooted in fear. Life is much better loosening flagellating solipsism towards relieving the burden we put on ourselves to 'know' what cannot be known, and unlock optimism in accepting questions as questions, and sobering up to the beauty our defensive rationalism was blinding us from before. As Stone says in a wonderful line, her psychoanalyst told her that she was eating for a certain maladaptive reason, but she's just hungry. Watching an atheist contest with an unexplainable magic in the form of another human being has never been a more fun demonstration of grappling with the mystifying and intimidating connection between a person and the object of their affection (even after he’s won over, Firth remains stunted by his logical part to let his heart match hers!) Allen shows that we all have a part that wants to find freedom in concrete belief in a separate entity as well as ourselves, each of which cradles a different sense of security. To actively take on the responsibility of loving, or surrender to be loved. Maybe the right relationship allows agnosticism to exist as the right answer and do both, with the surrender to mutual vulnerability being the equivalent meaning to life that a different kind of faith gives others. Sometimes we need our illusions, as Stone quotes Nietzsche to profess subjective reality reigning above all, associating 'illusions' (or "lies" as Firth reframes negatively) to be personal truths. There's no "should" in constructing our own happiness, and the path to discovering that the ‘emotional’ beats the ‘rational’ is a long one, but the rewards are endless. "How little that logic means when placed next to Sophie."