Once upon a Midnight in Paris:

A Formalist’s Approach

Main Argument 

The Formalist approach to cinema criticism can shed more light on what’s really going on in Midnight in Paris than any other form of movie analysis. In true Formalist fashion, I will look at one key scene, and extrapolate the meaning and effect it has on the rest of the film and on the audience. 

Claim #1

            I believe the crux of the film can be found in the director’s choices in the scene with Salvador Dali.

            Support for Claim #1

            The scene with Salvador Dali.

 Claim #2

The director is trying to make the audience contemplate Film as an art form, by cinematically showing      that Film can capture life more so than any painting.

Support for Claim #2

            “No painting can capture Paris” scene. Dali scene.

            Claim #3

            Woody Allen chooses to create a sense of duality throughout the film. The effect is that there is two        movies, one for two different audiences.

            Support for Claim #3

“You inhabit two worlds, simultaneously” Dali Scene. Painting vs Film. 2 Times periods. Rhinoceros metaphor.

So What?

The audience can take away whatever meaning they want to take from the movie, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Blog Assignment #3

I believe Ford and Toland remained faithful to the spirit of the book in the “match” scene near the beginning of the movie. The shadows cast upon the faces of the farmers during this scene seemed very chaotic, and went well thematically with the dust storm outside. It served as a visual metaphor for their helplessness before the whirlwind of confusion sweeping them off their land. They should get some credit for staying true to the spirit of the book for this scene and the first half of the movie in general. But the second half departs from the essence of the book and sends a different message altogether in the end. An Auteur should be judged on the entirety of their work, not on a single scene. If I were to judge solely on the scene I’d say yes, they would be Auteurs. But if they are to be evaluated for their faithfulness to adapting the book into an entire film, I would then say that they failed to be true Auteurs.

I understand why critics would dismiss Auteur theory. At first, I was leaning towards their line of reasoning. The question I kept coming back to was this: “Shouldn’t every film be judged solely on the content of the film?” In fact, I still agree that films should be judged as if you know nothing about the director, to keep from introducing bias into one’s judgment. After all, aren’t films mainly viewed by the generally uninformed audience member? However, I think Auteur theory still has its uses within film studies and in the film industry. I think that if a director brings a certain style into all of his or her films, it can be easier for a production studio to know what they will be getting by signing onto any of the director’s projects. The way that I believe Auteur theory benefits the general audience is that by bringing a certain visual and aesthetic style into each of a director’s films, the director will naturally become better pulling off “cinematic” moments.