Café Society (Woody Allen, 2016)

[domino harvey]

Eisenberg is always good, even in bad films. One of our best actors, not really sure why he rubs so many the wrong way

[Trees]

I agree that Eisenberg is a decent stand-in for Allen. So I guess he's a good choice in that sense. I just don't find him appealing enough to carry a picture.

[Black Hat]

Eisenberg is always good, even in bad films. One of our best actors, not really sure why he rubs so many the wrong way

I think this is for two reasons, one a carry over from The Social Network. Second, I think people often look to actors and actresses to be outside of our grasp. With Eisenberg there is nothing about him which is out of the ordinary. He's not particularly handsome, athletic, funny or charismatic. I think this builds a level of resentment, "How is this guy of all people a movie star?". What's forgotten here is the one quality Eisenberg has is consistency. This is probably the hardest virtue to attain as an artist, but the most overlooked from the outside.

[Randall Maysin]

I like Jesse Eisenberg, but I guess that he just has a built-in potential for, for lack of a better word, cunt-iness, the way someone like William Shimell does. His general aura of intelligent heartlessness/slightly malicious playfulness, his inexpressive eyes and face and flinty, inexpressive voice. These are the basic characteristics that nature gave him, however much or little (I can't say, having only seen him in The Social Network) he overcomes them as an actor or shows versatility beyond them, gets typecast because of them, etc.

He's not particularly handsome, athletic, funny or charismatic

You could say the same thing about Shia LeBeouf. Now there's someone who doesn't belong in show-biz!

[Trees]

Eisenberg is always good, even in bad films. One of our best actors, not really sure why he rubs so many the wrong way

I think this is for two reasons, one a carry over from The Social Network. Second, I think people often look to actors and actresses to be outside of our grasp. With Eisenberg there is nothing about him which is out of the ordinary. He's not particularly handsome, athletic, funny or charismatic. I think this builds a level of resentment, "How is this guy of all people a movie star?". What's forgotten here is the one quality Eisenberg has is consistency. This is probably the hardest virtue to attain as an artist, but the most overlooked from the outside.

It could be all that. Or just the fact that many people find him to be annoying.

[Black Hat]

He's not particularly handsome, athletic, funny or charismatic

You could say the same thing about Shia LeBeouf. Now there's someone who doesn't belong in show-biz!

You know between him quoting Eric Cantona, being surprisingly good in Nymphomaniac and a couple of other things I'm good with Shia.

The actor of this generation I find overrated is James Franco.

[Black Hat]

It could be all that. Or just the fact that many people find him to be annoying.

This was established. You can say it again or we can unwrap why people find Eisenberg off putting. I find the latter a more interesting exercise.

[Trees]

It could be all that. Or just the fact that many people find him to be annoying.

This was established. You can say it again or we can unwrap why people find Eisenberg off putting. I find the latter a more interesting exercise.

Some people are just annoying. I seriously doubt that jealousy is the main cause. I know plenty of broke, obscure people who are just flat-out annoying. It doesn't really require a deep dive. I remember hearing a lot of complaints about how annoying he was in Batman v Superman. Much of that can be blamed on the writing, direction and editing, though.

[jojo]

Jesse Eisenberg is a fascinating screen presence. As people here have said, he lacks a lot of obvious appealing 'star' qualities, yet he is consistent and solid in almost everything he's in. There's a part of him that keeps people at arm's length, a real lack of sentimentality, which is something that Michael Cera--someone Eisenberg used to be compared to years ago--falls more into. Cera is a nerd, but there's a harmless, almost sentimental quality to his screen persona. Eisenberg is nerdy, but there's something about him that seems dangerous, which is contrary to the stereotype that many people like to promote. He's not a 'lovable' nerd. Perhaps there's something about this that rubs people the wrong way on a subconscious level, yet is also a part of his uniqueness.

As for Shia, he may be annoying in real life, but he is generally a decent enough actor when you give him the right stuff.

I would say the actor who annoys me most is Ashton Kutcher. But that's because he reminds me of all those kids in high school, those "PSYCH! MADE YA LOOK! HAHA SUCKERRRR!" types which really pissed me off. So again, that's more of a personal thing.

[jojo]

Catch up with Woody

[mfunk9786]

A couple notes from that interview:

- The Amazon show is done.
- Allen would likely delete all of his films from history aside from very few: "There's probably six or eight of my films that I would keep, and you could have all the rest. Purple Rose of Cairo I would include, and Match Point and Husbands and Wives, probably Zelig, probably Midnight in Paris."

Having rewatched Midnight in Paris recently, it really is magnificent and would certainly make whatever shortlist I'd put together.

[domino harvey]

There was a good Entertainment Weekly feature from at least ten to fifteen years ago where they got Allen to rate all of his films up to that point and he disliked most of them then too. He's not wrong about Purple Rose of Cairo being his best though!

[bdsweeney]

I'm one of very many head over heels about Manhattan, fully aware that he thoroughly dislikes it because it doesn't match what his vision was for the film. I'm just really curious about what his original intentions for the film was, because I think it's a masterpiece. I seem to remember the old Time Out film guide suggesting that it was example of Allen finding his own voice rather than aping Bergman or another of his heroes, and I (to a certain extent) tend to agree.

[Randall Maysin]

What on earth, Bullets Over Broadway is WA's best effort. Purple Rose is my second-favorite, except that it has a horrible ending, that sort of ruins the whole movie in a way that kind of goes against the whole spirit of the film.

Spoiler

It's a bit like the "gritty, realistic" alternate ending to, I think, Dirty Dancing that Family Guy made up, where Patrick Swayze goes to jail and gets raped. The end.

I think I remember reading that Allen used the ending that he did just because he couldn't think up anything better. Or maybe Pauline Kael just made that up, I'm not sure.

Spoiler

I always think, if Jeff Daniels in the movie can have both a real-life self and a movie self, why can't Mia Farrow do the same, and maybe her real-life self and movie self could alternate weekends with horrible Danny Aiello in awful reality and then living in the fun, wacky movie world. Or something.

Even that is better than the ending that Allen went with.

[domino harvey]

It's a film about the power of film. By the end of it, it's all she's left with, and it's enough. Any other ending would miss the point

[knives]

I'm not even a fan of the film and I realize your ending is infinitely worse then what we have. Not only does it not make sense to have two Farrows, but as Dom says leaving her with the satisfaction of the movie is a very happy way to end the film that fits into the themes that Allen has set up. Any ending without these factors would either not fit into the theme or be emotionally dishonest or both.

[Professor Wagstaff]

The Purple Rose of Cairo is my favorite Allen film and has maybe my favorite ending to a film because of what Domino said. I'm not sure any work of art did a better job of encapsulating my relationship with cinema and that of many other cinephiles. I've heard that Orion tried to convince Allen to change the ending to something more upbeat, but he said he wanted the ending he wrote because it's the whole reason he made the film.

[mfunk9786]

But, uh, Family Guy

[Magic Hate Ball]

The trick of the film is that you fall in love with it as much as Farrow does. You can always watch it again, and then you can watch it again, and then you can watch it again, for those sweet, happy moments in the middle. And then you'll die, eventually.

[The Narrator Returns]

I just got back from seeing this. As the sole member of this forum who belongs to Team Irrational Man, you're free to ignore my opinions on this, but this kinda knocked me flat on my ass. The ads paint it as a romantic trifle, but it's really not that at all, feeling more like an even more bittersweet, slightly more comedic Vicky Cristina Barcelona mixed with a soured version of Radio Days

Spoiler

(there's even a reprise of the scene in that movie with the confrontation with the Communist neighbor, with this version ending very badly for the neighbor)

. And this is most likely Allen's most gorgeous color film, and not by a particularly close margin (although there are a couple shots, likely a result of it being Allen's first time at bat with digital, where the actors look like they're in front of a green screen when they're on location).

[J Adams]

Absent 35mm this is not his most beautiful film. Liked it o/w.

[mfunk9786]

I'm left sort of wondering what film The Narrator Returns saw. This started promisingly enough, but it feels more disjointed and purposeless as it goes on (from the point that the biggest plot balloon bursts midway through, nothing that occurs afterward manages to rise to the occasion) and while pretty, the visual style is quite flat and straightforward - this isn't Magic in the Moonlight by any stretch. Suffers from a few notable dialogue-centric moments that go on too long or should've been excised entirely considering their minimal plot impact, and there's more than one instance of sloppy editing, chopping the end off of a scene when it's visible that Stewart or Eisenberg in particular are about to say something else. I don't want to imply that this seems rushed, but it absolutely does seem to just be going through the motions. Very minor, inoffensive, doze off halfway through a Tuesday night viewing Allen.

Worth noting because I'm pleased with it: It seems that her little part in Inherent Vice has ignited Jeannie Berlin's career - with excellent turns in both this and The Night Of. She's a nearly peerless character actress and I hope the reignited interest in her playing dialogue-rich supporting roles continues.

[movielocke]

(to recent posts, I'm saving Purple Rose of Cairo in the hopes of catching it at a screening, it's one of the only Allen films I haven't seen, and the only major one)

Eisenberg is indeed excellent in the film, as are the other two leads, but nothing can really save the film from being a beautiful bore. It just digests turgidly over it's relentless runtime and I was ultimately relieved when it was finally over.

[Dr Amicus]

Well, I watched this last night - and I'm not really sure what I feel about it. Mostly, I enjoyed it - the performances are up to scratch, Eisenberg and Stewart make affecting leads and Ken Stott threatens to steal the entire film. However, it does feel a bit clumsily put together with the New York based, Radio Days style sequences not quite fitting with the LA based romance plot, and a couple of sequences (the Anna Camp section for one) which seem to be added in to make it more Woody like.

But - the ending is so good, it makes me wonder if a second viewing will add the consistency that appears to be missing from a first viewing. But considering how well Allen's best films manage this consistency in combining the dramatic and comedic elements, it probably doesn't reach that level. However, I felt a similar way after my first viewing of Purple Rose - it was only after a second viewing a couple of years later that I fell in love with it. So, initial thoughts are that it's fine but flawed - and I'm looking forward to revisit.

[bearcuborg]

I finally saw this too, I can't really add much on Eisenberg as a leading man, because this movie wasn't very good. Perhaps more than most Allen movies, this one is worth it for the music and cinematography. The Rodgers and Hart stuff is out of this world.