Absence Of Celebration

An Essay on Café Society

Woody Allen’s most recent film, Café Society, has been probably the season’s most anticipated piece in a few circles, as the old writer-director has unceasingly uphold his reputation in the past several years. He had many exceedingly and a few hardly memorable movies in his line of annual releases. This year’s film is simultaneously a worthy continuation and a surprising departure from the latest trend in the Woody Allen factory.

In numerous respects it’s a classical piece with all the usual themes: urban life, particularly the praise of New York; disillusionment; the overall pointlessness of life; being a Jew in America; neurosis and neurotics; unfulfilled love, and jazz. In some ways these were easily identifiable and fresh but at the same time they seemed to be somewhat rushed and stale--it is almost impossible to describe it without contradictions.

In this period piece we get to follow the life of a Jewish New York family and their several exploits. In the focal point there is a young, neurotic Jessie Eisenberg, who looks and acts quite similarly to the young Woody Allen. He falls in love with an unsuccessful, unspoiled Hollywood debutante, even has a chance at a short romance with her but his influential, wealthy and well-loved uncle takes the girl. As the protagonist returns to his hometown, he finds solace in high social life and a nicely growing success as a bar manager. The movie ends without many great twists and turns, with a few bitter moments of the once-lover couple meeting but never chancing at starting again together. 

I think it’s unnecessary to go into details concerning the family, the why’s and how’s, as the real treasure that this film is is hidden somewhere else.

In the context of the last twenty years of Woody Allen movies he has arguably been creating more of essays than solid works. The characteristics of his films have been changing, from the surreal reality to more subtle ways. The incomplete list of his themes above is very well-known among the people who have seen at least three or four of his works and there seems to be a will to find a perfect body for a Woody Allen film. Evidently experimentation with tone, color, period, narrative tools and much more have been defining the writer-director’s approach to his work.

Firstly, the tone is now balanced and masterful. With Match Point, and Irrational Man he has gone down the path paved by Dostoevsky. The dark brutality that he has tried to grasp in humanity has been so refined now that he probably felt it burdensome to emphasize its graveness and made it as frivolous as is fit to someone, who grew up on classical film noires. But also the romantic and neurotic air, so typical, has been refined into a cynical calmness, beyond even the point of “I can only laugh”. We have all seen the disillusionment of Woody Allen but it seems the energetic overtone is now smoothing out, which is a good thing, since the things to replace it are subtlety, mastery and unpretended grandeur.

As regards the color and period of this film I must say this is the closest I have seen to perfection. Obviously these work as great reassurances to the subject matter of the movie but there is also an important subtle depth to them. His most successful attempts at these two have been Irrational Man and Midnight in Paris. The former with its rosy color foreshadowing violence, the latter being half-set in the most resonant period of American history. In some respect Café Society is an adaptation of The Great Gatsby, dwarfing Baz Luhrman’s--in comparison--cheap attempt. In the titular film several moments are highlighted and tainted with a golden shade--something not similar but identical to Fitzgerald’s work. At first it seems to underline the high hopes and dreams of the likable protagonist and it then gradually flowers into the color of death and decay, more and more disappearing from Jessie Eisenberg’s scenes and more and more coloring death around him. In the beginning he is hopeful, he is made golden but what it symbolizes loses meaning and moves into external things, for example originally he feels this golden color and loves a brunette, then in the end feels nothing close to that but his wife has golden hair. The period of the film is also evocative of The Great Gatsby: one will feel both a romantic feeling for that specific time and a detachment because of the overhanging horror.

In To Rome with Love we have seen a contemporary, yet clear narrative with multiple storielines to follow, hardly ever intersecting each other, connected mainly by the place but not limited by anything. Now Café Society is far more conservative but clearly shows the understanding that the creator has obtained through a daring project. It is subtle, it is a lot but it is enough--according to this blogger. Here it is the family members that create multiple dimensions, although they are pointing toward a final intersection inside our protagonist. To me it’s these simultaneously running stories that create the oh-so-familiar feeling of neurosis in Café Society.

A nowadays often looked-down-upon tool has been utilized in the film: voice-over. However there is nothing to be despised about it, since it is no more than semblance that it served the function of exposition--in fact it is subtle but continuous cynicism, magnified only by the past experiences with Woody Allen films. It speaks a language known only to the adepts but to them it speaks it quite comprehensibly.

Even the casting of this film is subtly outstanding. We have several savvy choices of returning actors from past Woody Allen movies, like our old Hemingway as the brute of the family, or pseudo-neurotic Jessie Eisenberg. What I think is the greatest decision with regards to the actors is Steve Carell, who is Italian enough to play a Jew--a joke a little too much on the nose...

Overall this film is one more step in the direction of at least my ideal of a Woody Allen film. It has so numerous merits, it looks so subtle, expensive, real and beautiful that I won’t stop praising it in a reasonable space of time.

I have exorcised the demons. This house is clean.

Waiting is hard but it's better than having nothing to look forward to.

Let your love be strong

"Falling down like broken satellites..." This is what Jon Foreman felt at some point in his life. I bet this wasn't just a one-time-experience, for I know it befalls on me over and over again.

I know where I'm headed, I know what I should do right now but I'm constantly wasting time from my life. It's when I don't shoot for the goal. Then it doesn't matter if I'm just sitting around, doing nothing or I'm purposefully transgressing morals, rules, anything... The effect is always the same: emptiness, being burn-out...

As I've said, I know where I'm headed. I know what I should do. It's so easy to picture myself as being an acknowledged novelist, director or such. I just sit here and imagine... And I also have great plans of finishing my first novel AT LAST. It's so clear what road leads there, what action is required now. But I'm just not on the right path. Momentarily...

However, as I said above, this is a temporary state, ergo, there is a way out. My momentary "crisis" can be settled, I can be revived very easily. There's this solution, which Jon Foreman sings about, he asks the Great I Am: Let your love be strong!

My world has to be resting on His love, and then I'm immediately out of the pit. Simple as that. Why? Because no matter what you're telling me, I feel His indescribable love, so I'm being moved externally. My miserable minutes are over, and maybe I can sing tomorrow's song earlier than expected :)

...you say that it’s a confession of weakness for a scientist not to write.

Fitzgerald - Tender is the Night

The loneliest moment in someone’s life is when they are watching their whole world fall apart, and all they can do is stare blankly.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby  (via sunst0ne)

Noah vs Christians

My political philosophy professor once said that philosophical texts argue against something. I originally intended to critique Darren Aronofsky's Noah but I've been overwhelmed by the many unjust (well, in some cases) reviews. So what I'm writing right now will not be a crystal-clear stand-alone critique but it will be also an argument against others.

I will begin with the harshest criticism that I've heard so far: It is a falsification of he biblical Noah story. It was actually a bit of a surprise to me because I am a christian myself and it never occured to me. What must be observed is that it is a dramatization, which means making something into a drama. A drama is a piece of art, like a painting or an opera. If the crucifixion is painted, does it falsify the Bible by the characters not looking exactly the same as they actually looked? No. If Noah is a dramatization, one must look at it as an independent artistic feat, which in no way attempts to replace, say, the teachings of the Bible. Someone said to me that those, who don't have a basic knowledge or understanding of the Noah story, will watch Aronofsky's work and think that it's the Bible. Well, it's problematic. I can't imagine this becoming a thing. This isn't a hundred percent true, of course, so there might be people, who would fall under the impression that it is a true depiction and it is, of course, acceptable to advertise that it actually isn't but nothing further comes from this, like saying that it is actively against the Bible. In the other hand, this person did not consider how the christians, who think like him, will miss the actual merits of the film, while strongly concentrating on their preconcieved fears.

There was also the idea that the Bible's Noah was a missionary and he tried to actually save everyone from dying, instead of deliberately keeping them out of the ark. They argued that it is written in the New Testament that God patiently waited for the people who were otherwise condemned to death (1 Peter 3:20); and that Noah was a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5). It is a misunderstanding to think that these things go against the movie. They certainly aren't in focus because Aronofsky had other things he wanted to communicate. But the film's depiction of God isn't essentially untrue to this. Christianity's chief principle is that life on earth is not the complete life but instead, we have an eternal perspective. The Bible's truth is also about more than the truth that a flood will come: it is about God and his love for humanity. If we marry these two together we will see that Noah's missionary work was to save the souls of the poeple of his time, much rather than convincing them that they will be killed by water if they persist that they keep out from his ark. So, this aspect of the Noah story isn't represented, however, if people turned to God, gave up their wicked ways and were truly converted, even Aronofsky's Noah wouldn't have kept them out of the ark, even so, the whole deluge would probably have been cancelled.

Another criticism that I've heard was not unique to christians, even secular voices said this: In the movie, people are subordinate to nature. Noah seems to think the same and the bad guy, Tubalcain, says, what seems to be the modern approach, and it looks a bit like judgment of modern people because of how much they neglect their environment. To me it was much more like Noah had this inner conflict whether or not God wants mankind to continue existing but he never even entertained the thought that hierarchically the animals and plants would be superior to mankind. The animals seemed to have preserved the right to live through not being corrupted, on the contrary it doesn't equal being more valuable. What gives ground to this view is that Noah understands that he has a responsibility toward the nature. He should serve the animals but not be their servant or slave, much rather being a true master through caring and valuing them. Sadly, this is such an alien or radical concept that people tend to feel offended by it and feel that they are treated inferior to animals.

I heard something else, what really seemed baseless to me: Female characters are depicted in the light of the modern feminist culture, instead of what was present at that age. This argument was a real surprise because the first thing I said, while leaving the cinema was that in this movie the female characters were pretty traditional. Others argued that the way Noah's wife "told him off" would have been unimaginable at that time, since if the man says they cut down the wife's children, the wife will have her own thoughts, disagreeing with the man's decision but they will keep silent and watch he man deliver his will. Well, the first consideration we ought to make is: how long ago did Noah live? Very long ago but who can tell exactly? Nobody can. But someone said to me that the same system existed as in Abraham's time, since Noah's family was which started civilization again and so culture originates from them and Abraham lived in an early culture. This is poor reasoning because theologians may know quite a lot about a certain part of history but since every civilization comes from Noah and his descendants, so do older ones, like China. Abraham lived about 4000 years ago, whereas China started its career approximately 5000 years ago (these aren't accurate numbers, I'm only trying to give a sense about which one is the older). So to have the right to say that this or that was traditional in Noah's time requires thorough understanding of all of the ancient cultures, which the creators of this argument lack (I lack it about equally as much). We might think that hierarchical traditions precede egalitarian ones, while in China there have been egalitarian communities a lot earlier than the philosophy would have been borne with John Rawls in the 20th century. Of course, there has always been a hierarchical tradition in ancient China, too, my point is only that certain social systems seem to appear after a certain chronology preceding it and it's just misleading. Having made these precautions, I will proceed to my last argument against this line of reasoning. As Noah's wife even tells Noah, she stuck with him through everything, even through the annihilation of everyone on earth. She did as he has said and she helped him through hell without really ever going against him in words or in actions. So she never told Noah off. But when she says that she will abandon him, it is not that she stands up and starts a new family, or casts Noah out. She actually pledges her allegiance to Shem and his new family, so the authority that Noah used to have as the patriarch, is being withdrawn by the family, which' trust formerly constituted it.

There was a secular argument, which really confused me. Someone said that Aronofsky usually makes his characters suffer from a sort of obsession in his films and Noah's obsession is obeying God's orders. While I understand what this argument is about, I still find it overall confusing. Nobody can have this obsession because God gives wisdom and shows the way on which to walk in every field of life, ergo whoever is obsessed with God is obsessed with everything and that is not an obsession. In Noah's particular case he is exclusively focusing on what mission God has given him. He builds up the ark, he gives up human life on earth but eventually walks back on his decision. This can seem like having an obsession, then finally getting rid of it, still, I believe it is a wrong inerpretation. First, we see what happens, when Noah follows his vision: everything goes well and everything is justified by God, he always receives what is necessary for continuing. Then, at one point, Noah is going out to find wives for his sons and then he sees the true wickedness of humanity and that is what implants the idea that all the people should die on earth, including his own family. But this isn't God's message, it is Noah's own idea because he is afraid of the bad that's inside of everyone's heart. In the Bible we get to see that Noah's a righteous person and his heart is clean but it is, once more, a dramatization, and he finds himself equally evil. And though it is true that there was evil in Noah and all his family, he was still saved. Why Noah is trying to get an end to humanity is that he himself judges his own race, just like God has done formerly. We see the consequences of Noah's judgment, not the Lord's in it. Well, the Bible is not going into details of this sort but there never seems to be the same thing, so this is Aronofsky's addition. It is an ineresting thought and worth meditating on but I think it's quite clear that Noah was not really obsessed but actually conflicted.

The part where I "argue against" ends here. I will go on, though without opposing ideas this time.

What I found very profound was Tubalcain's inner conflict. He knew about the existence of the Creator but he lost contact with him, he has probably never had it. From the story of Pentecost we have learned that the Holy Spirit was sent to be the mediator between God and mankind only after that event and so having connection with God has been very different before. Tubalcain's in-film problems probably originate from the fact that apart from Noah, nobody had that connection, but since Tubalcain and his contemporaries were not long after Eden, where Adam and Eve had a daily and personal connection with God, they somehow craved it. There is a certain ambivalence in this because even though he has an honest desire to reconnect with the Creator he still is evil and he wouldn't think for a second of following God. Tubalcain thinks of the Almighty as equal but men aren't equal with God. He refuses the proud and accepts the humble. Noah is humble and it doesn't mean he would be weak or stupid, since he is the only righteous person in the whole world, which is quite an achievement. But returning to Tubalcain, I find it ingenius that Aronofsky made this attempt to explore the depths of feeling neglected or denied by God.

The last thing that I'd like to mention is the montage of murders: Showing people of different ages killing each other by different means, the people being only dark silhouttes before the red background. Aronofsky was truly creative with this one but there's more to it than the mere spectacle. First of all, it is in the contex of Noah's tale of the creation of the world, so Noah is reasoning with it against the continuation of the existence of men. But as we see that killing is present through all the ages, not exclusively in the ones that preceded Noah, is alarming. Even in the Bible, it is written after the deluge ended that the heart of humans is filled with evil. The very reason why the total population of earth has been annihilated ultimately persists. This is actually why the story of Noah matters so much: the crimes, for which once everyone was killed, are still present, yet we live. This doesn't make much sense in itself. Not at all, unless you read the whole Bible and you read about Jesus, who died for us. This is a brilliant thing, something that only God could think of. 

The Oscars & La La Land

Many passionate people were worried this year that Damian Chazelle’s La La Land would steal the award of Best Picture from the daring project, titled Moonlight. To their great avail, it did not happen but I was rather confused by the arguments they presented as ground for Moonlight to win. Surprisingly it never came up that it would be simply a quality film, worthy in its own right to win. The main reason was its theme. 

While I myself am decidedly left-leaning, for me the Academy Awards are about excellence in film. Yet, I see a multitude of people, sharing my convictions, being completely biased toward or against certain artistic creations based on said convictions. For example, a loud outlet of ideas and opinions, Vox, made a video, which highlighted that the current voting system of the Oscars favors the films that have the highest general esteem, as opposed to other ones, which may be polarizing but have the most individual votes. While either way would be legitimate and fine, the preferential voting system might be a bit more precisely geared toward rightly selecting victors. The basic concept is key: we are looking for the best film of the year. If we get a polarizing winner, there will be a powerful minority--even more, since we’re not having a choice of 2 pieces but of multiple, so probably a majority that opposes the winning movie. Thus this system of selection can prove completely erroneous, since the largest minority deems a movie good, while the majority may say it is actually a product of poor filmmaking.

Now I am happy for Moonlight to have won the award but it has to be absolutely clear what its victory means: it is the best picture of the year from an artistic-commercial standpoint. As trivial as it sounds, most advocates of this film called it worthy and important for political, or human rights reasons. It seems progressive to award movies with politically progressive themes but Moonlight’s excellence cannot lie in the skin color of its actors. It can win awards for that but not by the Academy but by organizations or political agents.

In fact I posit a film’s political merits are unimportant details, when it comes to the Oscars. And if for many more decades we wouldn’t see black crews getting the award for best picture, it wouldn’t matter from the perspective of the legitimacy of the Academy or the prestige of the prize. It would and should mean that there are no good enough films made about this subject matter. Moonlight was this year’s best picture, according to the Academy, for its cinematic merits. Even so, were the case different, had they won because of the theme of the lives of people of color, their achievement would be nullified--their Oscar would become meaningless. 

In my opinion La La Land was a rightful contender. The fact that it dealt with life in Hollywood was not a red flag of being Oscar bait. The truth of the matter is, most mainstream directors are actually passionate about the industry and the place, they wake up with it on their minds and go to bed with it--it permeates their everyday, they get their joy from it, even their bread from it.

Damian Chazelle is well-known for his love of films akin to his own creation, so its his genuine love-child. It, in a way, goes against Hollywood shallowness by depleting the idea of easy living presented by classic musicals and generic rom-coms in a witty, satirical way. It is an achievement. But that is just one facet of the movie, designed for people who breathe that in daily. On a deeper level there is a very unique, yet old idea explained to us in great fashion: the dreams and passions define people’s personalities. 

Its truth can be argued but it hit a chord with many a viewers. The general expectation toward any musical is that it should be light and alleviating from the pains of the real world. In La La Land we get just the opposite: we have to face our internal conflicts and routine compromises that corrupt us and make our lives mediocre. Of course, there is a great narrative balance: we get something to learn and we get a little escapade. The profound idea and conflict is our lesson and the shimmering sets, combined with the ghastly beauty of the music is our break from reality.

La La Land reverberates the old American way of grand gestures and grandiose ambitions. It slowly died out from the everydays in the ‘60s but they are surfacing again in the works of this writer-director. 

Finally, I cannot end without praising La La Land’s ending. There are almost as many interpretations as there were audience members. One can easily find convincing and intelligent opinions, which certainly seem to coincide with the creator’s vision. However, returning to the underlying concept of the film I think the strongest side of it is how it shows the characters’ humanity, idealized but torn down to the ruins. 

The most obvious thought about the final sequence is that “it should have been” their story. At the end of the movie we have a lot of sympathy toward the protagonists and we are greatly saddened by the failure of their relationship. However, we should try to step outside from our perspectives, after all, that is what immersion is all about... From the characters’ point of view we find the same summary of “it should have been”, but it means more than from the mouth of someone sitting in a movie theater. It means “I have erred, I should have done it differently.” I think this is a great addition to the already intriguing basic concept. 

The main characters have cultivated their dreams and passions and thus their personalities have become the amazing thing they always wanted--it is inspirational, yet not unrealistic. It is actually a viable route in life to develop ourselves in fields we are passionate about, people do not lose their fortunes because of their dreams or passions but because of external hardships or internal flaws. But this inspiring journey is contrasted with a personal failure. Love is undeniably an important part of life--it is argued against only by the cynics. On the forefront of human happiness we find both personal growth and love. These both determine our happiness and it is not a zero sum game, where we must choose one of the two. But it is true that we can be successful at one and lose tragically on the other.

An Open Letter to TFioS

Dear TFioS,

I got you for Christmas and I watched you in the movie-theater last Saturday and I like you. I like you but that doesn’t mean I don’t have something to say to you.

Of course your unorthodox and irreverent plot is refreshing and it really talks to people in many ways. This is somehing that people are craving—what I personally am craving and thank you for being this way. A book review said that you are “damn near genius” and you are so. It sounds like a huge compliment (one that I’ve never received, so I sort of envy you for it) but this isn’t the greatest one, which would be:”it’s genius”. John Green is made of awesome and so are you, TFioS, still, neither of you are made of genius. Let me elaborate:

#1: Is the fault really in our stars? John Rawls would probably congratulate you on the fine point you have made about how nature is creating random inequality and unfairness. What mindless animal would one have to be to say that it is fair what Hazel and Gus went through, none of it out of their own making or desert? Their example—and the title really—shows what a great fault there is in what our lot is in life. It would have been fair if Hazel and Gus’ cancer was given to an evil mass-murderer—yeah, I don’t really mean that; no one should get cancer, ever. You tell it wondrously that no matter who you are or what you’ve done, this sort of pain is unbearably immense. Everyone deserves the same and that same would be a normal life, which is free of disease, free of tragedy, free of all sorts of bad things. Everyone deserves it because of human dignity, which is everybody’s. When Gus calls Hazel to the petrol station to help him because he got very sick, we get to see the unromanticized version of dying from cancer, which is the true version of dying: painful and miserable. This whole thing is an attempt to introduce us—through characters we get to care about and truly heartbraking events happening to them—to the reality of undeserved suffering in the world. I used the word:”undeserved”, but is it really? It would also be fair if everyone on earth was suffering the same as these kids, wouldn’t it? As I’ve said before, only a terrible person would say that, and that’s because of human dignity. And where does that come from? One could say that:”Yes, people do terrible things sometimes but no one deserves to suffer or experience pain.” Such a statement would be based on the concept of dignity, which’ existence we can only assume, following our moral compass, our feelings. Naturally, I wouldn’t say that there’s no such a thing as human dignity or that I want to see someone go through this hell. My point is that the origin of dignity is not inspected thoroughly and it cannot be a groundless assumption. If we built on it, first we’d need to see why it’s an unshakable foundation. 

#2: Infinities are problematic. I’m not going to discuss the mathematical inexactitude of your statement about the size of the infinity between 0 and 1 compared to the one between 0 and 2 because you’ve already apologized for that and also because it doesn’t really matter. At the end of the story, when Hazel remembers her time together with Gus, she is really grateful for their “little infinity”. I suppose she means that their relationship and their experiences were immeasurably valuable, even if smaller in number than the one’s of someone with a greater lifespan. This serves as a poetic and sublime element, though it also implies that even where there is great pain, there’s beauty. But if all that is equal in worth to what other people have, then why is it sad that they have to die? Or is it not sad at all? Is it okay for them to have to go through all that horror and then die so young? It’s rather terrible—or unspeakably terrible. But if only the quantity and the length of beautiful things in life matter, what’s the limit of having a good life? If everyone had the same amount of happiness and the same length of it and an equal lifespan, I suppose that’d count as a good world. But wouldn’t we try to extend the length of our lives if everyone was to live 80 years already? It would be neat if everyone lived for 200 years, wouldn’t it? And if Hazel and Gus were to live 80 years, whereas everyone else 200 years, would that count as a tragedy, too? Is it just the relative length and amount that matters or is it the absolute of them? It seems that both do: we want a relatively and an absolutely longer, richer life. That’s alright, of course. The ultimate thing we would settle with is infinity—literal infinity, not just the allegorical one. To have Hazel be grateful for what they shared is really awesome, my point is really what this tells the audience is unclear and/or indefinite.

#3: Where’s that extra mile? When Hazel and Gus are talking about what comes after death, I thought some conclusion would be made. Okay, there was actually this: even people, who believe in something transcendent aren’t necessarily morons. Thanks, I appreciate it, but whether or not there’s an afterlife, or whether or not God exists, these are sort of important questions. Especially when you’re so conscious about your imminent death. The whole thing is understandable, of course, since to someone who is not a believer, it’s obvious that there’s no Heaven, no Lord, no nothing, yet I was extremely let down, when Gus said that there has to be a point to it all and Hazel’s reply was about the overall pointlessness of everything AND then no distinct conclusion, apart from what’s above. It’s nice of you not to take away the hopes of christians though. But to make two teenagers so profound as Hazel and Gus are and then just let them be diplomatic about the point (or the pointlessness) of being is just lazy. It’s popular to think that a writer’s duty is to ask important questions but it is also their duty to offer answers to important questions and not be like:”Yeah, ‘A’ might be the ultimate truth, but whoever says ‘B’ is it, well, yeah, they’re totally cool to say that.”

Okay, TFioS, I’m sorry for criticizing you, I don’t mean to hurt your feelings or something. You are a beautiful book—you never forgot to be awesome. Thank you for existing and thank you for feeling the pain of everybody, especially of those who feel the greatest pain.

Best wishes,

B

P.S.: Okay.