As the Grim Reaper starts to raise its ugly head, our approach to life evolves somewhere between skepticism and faith, whatever happens (or doesn't happen) after death occupies the most of our thoughts. Some people grow with a bitter and more disillusioned taste of life, there's no benevolent paternalistic figure or a great scheme of things to justify the many injustices in the world, and for the others, the universe is too infinite and life too mysterious to pretend they divulged the most of their secrets.
Now, the question is: where does Woody Allen stand between these two schools of thoughts? Being an Allen aficionado, I'm pretty certain he's not a believer, I'm not sure I would use the A-word but his view on his Jewish background has rarely spread to the practice area, except if it could serve as vehicles for gags or colorful details about his childhood memories. But one can't look at Allen's body of work and see only rationality and cynicism, the most prolific screenwriter of all time used his creative talent to question the value of intellect over the kind of stuff that is "invisible to the eyes" as Saint-Exupéry would say. There's not one single Allen film where the human condition isn't put in equation, and in "Magic in the Moonlight", Allen grows a complete plot out of it, four decades after his hilarious "Love and Death".
But "Magic in the Moonlight" doesn't compete with "Love and Death", so don't let this lengthy pompous intro fool you, as deep and solemn as the theme is, the film belongs to the minor Allen category, and many of his minor stuff is still more entertaining and insightful than some others' big stuff. Still, it is minor because once you get the basis of the film, you can see most of the plot coming, quite a shame when you have unpredictability as one of Allen's strongest suits. The movie opens with Colin Firth as Wei Ling Soo, a magician who executes many banal acts until the highlight of the show, which I won't reveal a word about it, because it's the movie's McGuffin. Of course, Wei Ling Soo is only a stage name, in real life, his name is Stanley, and he's no more Chinese than Woodyy Allen is Swedish, which establishes very well his status as the Master of Illusions, much more one who's capable to spot any trick and any quack.
When a friend and fellow member named Howard Burkan, played by Simon McBurney asks him to postpone his travel to the Galapagos Islands because he just found that special someone, a girl with amazing psychic skills, able to guess anything and communicate with the dead, Stanley's curiosity is tickled so he says goodbye to his beautiful fiancée and travels to the South of France to meet this little wonder, and it's an opportunity to visit his dear Aunt Vanessa (Eileen Atkins). When he gets there, he's like in occupied territory, Sophie has already conquered the hearts of the Catledge, the rich widow eager to communicate with her husband and her son who's so blinded by love he thinks it's a good idea to court her with an ukulele. Later he adopts a wiser strategy by dangling premises of living a rich life, rich in every meaning of the word.
Emma stone is Sophie and she's like a beautiful sunflower blossoming in the middle of the Mediterranean fields, she smiles, she gently wanders in the garden like a little girl and she never overreacts nor to Brice's boring enamored tirades, nor to Stanley's obnoxious remarks. And progressively, her skills have an effect on him, and a very disturbing one. So after the first act where we had the rational man trying to unmask the charlatan, we know the roles will be reversed, because a man with such monolithic rationality only deserve to have his certitudes totally shattered. And we can all predict a romantic scenario for one simple reason: they're both promised to marry other people who are the 'right choices'. This is where Allen's talent shows.
Allen knows everyone expects a romance but what he smartly uses the romance to provide answers to the film's main theme: why can't a rational mind admit that many things that structure the world, defy reason? And maybe, and I'm being very cautious, this is more than Woody Allen the mystical, but Woody Allen the man whose reputation has been tarnished by his former wife, who admits that his current romance had inner elements that could be perceived as wrong at first stance but who can really judge? There's one of Allen's most brilliant moments consisting on a simple verbal ping pong between a preoccupied Stanley and his laconic aunt playing solitaire. Stanley is surprised by his feelings because they have no rational basis, yet they exist very much. Does that ring a bell?
And perhaps this is the message Allen tries to convey in "Magic in the Moonlight", magic is everywhere and if one wants to see physical laws while stargazing, others have perceptions that transcend the seen and the known. There might be a trick for everything, even to explain the universe but who can explain how the alchemy of love, especially love-at-first-sight work? As long as such mysteries prevail, there'll never be positive answers about anything. Four decades after "Love and Death", maybe Allen came full circle with his metaphysical worries, using a serious yet lighthearted tone.
So there had to be a happy ending, but my only regret is that the greatest screenwriter of all time indulged to such a cliché conclusion, form-wise, the last twenty seconds were unnecessary. For a film that based the entire plot on mysterious presences, it came the closest to have one of the most original and interesting endings of any Allen's film. But I guess we all mistakes, even the great Stanley, even the great Allen.
Now, the question is: where does Woody Allen stand between these two schools of thoughts? Being an Allen aficionado, I'm pretty certain he's not a believer, I'm not sure I would use the A-word but his view on his Jewish background has rarely spread to the practice area, except if it could serve as vehicles for gags or colorful details about his childhood memories. But one can't look at Allen's body of work and see only rationality and cynicism, the most prolific screenwriter of all time used his creative talent to question the value of intellect over the kind of stuff that is "invisible to the eyes" as Saint-Exupéry would say. There's not one single Allen film where the human condition isn't put in equation, and in "Magic in the Moonlight", Allen grows a complete plot out of it, four decades after his hilarious "Love and Death".
But "Magic in the Moonlight" doesn't compete with "Love and Death", so don't let this lengthy pompous intro fool you, as deep and solemn as the theme is, the film belongs to the minor Allen category, and many of his minor stuff is still more entertaining and insightful than some others' big stuff. Still, it is minor because once you get the basis of the film, you can see most of the plot coming, quite a shame when you have unpredictability as one of Allen's strongest suits. The movie opens with Colin Firth as Wei Ling Soo, a magician who executes many banal acts until the highlight of the show, which I won't reveal a word about it, because it's the movie's McGuffin. Of course, Wei Ling Soo is only a stage name, in real life, his name is Stanley, and he's no more Chinese than Woodyy Allen is Swedish, which establishes very well his status as the Master of Illusions, much more one who's capable to spot any trick and any quack.
When a friend and fellow member named Howard Burkan, played by Simon McBurney asks him to postpone his travel to the Galapagos Islands because he just found that special someone, a girl with amazing psychic skills, able to guess anything and communicate with the dead, Stanley's curiosity is tickled so he says goodbye to his beautiful fiancée and travels to the South of France to meet this little wonder, and it's an opportunity to visit his dear Aunt Vanessa (Eileen Atkins). When he gets there, he's like in occupied territory, Sophie has already conquered the hearts of the Catledge, the rich widow eager to communicate with her husband and her son who's so blinded by love he thinks it's a good idea to court her with an ukulele. Later he adopts a wiser strategy by dangling premises of living a rich life, rich in every meaning of the word.
Emma stone is Sophie and she's like a beautiful sunflower blossoming in the middle of the Mediterranean fields, she smiles, she gently wanders in the garden like a little girl and she never overreacts nor to Brice's boring enamored tirades, nor to Stanley's obnoxious remarks. And progressively, her skills have an effect on him, and a very disturbing one. So after the first act where we had the rational man trying to unmask the charlatan, we know the roles will be reversed, because a man with such monolithic rationality only deserve to have his certitudes totally shattered. And we can all predict a romantic scenario for one simple reason: they're both promised to marry other people who are the 'right choices'. This is where Allen's talent shows.
Allen knows everyone expects a romance but what he smartly uses the romance to provide answers to the film's main theme: why can't a rational mind admit that many things that structure the world, defy reason? And maybe, and I'm being very cautious, this is more than Woody Allen the mystical, but Woody Allen the man whose reputation has been tarnished by his former wife, who admits that his current romance had inner elements that could be perceived as wrong at first stance but who can really judge? There's one of Allen's most brilliant moments consisting on a simple verbal ping pong between a preoccupied Stanley and his laconic aunt playing solitaire. Stanley is surprised by his feelings because they have no rational basis, yet they exist very much. Does that ring a bell?
And perhaps this is the message Allen tries to convey in "Magic in the Moonlight", magic is everywhere and if one wants to see physical laws while stargazing, others have perceptions that transcend the seen and the known. There might be a trick for everything, even to explain the universe but who can explain how the alchemy of love, especially love-at-first-sight work? As long as such mysteries prevail, there'll never be positive answers about anything. Four decades after "Love and Death", maybe Allen came full circle with his metaphysical worries, using a serious yet lighthearted tone.
So there had to be a happy ending, but my only regret is that the greatest screenwriter of all time indulged to such a cliché conclusion, form-wise, the last twenty seconds were unnecessary. For a film that based the entire plot on mysterious presences, it came the closest to have one of the most original and interesting endings of any Allen's film. But I guess we all mistakes, even the great Stanley, even the great Allen.