Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Woody Allen's "Blue Jasmine"

Wow. This could be as good as some of his 80s stuff.

by Anonymousreply 9702/06/2014

Seeing the trailer a second time, this looks to be Woody's version of "Streetcar."

by Anonymousreply 106/07/2013

Was that supposed to be funny? Zzzz...

by Anonymousreply 206/07/2013

He's a hack

by Anonymousreply 306/07/2013


by Anonymousreply 406/07/2013

Woody seems to be having another one of his late career renaissances ("Midnight in Paris" and "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" were great, and even minor works like "Whatever Works" and "To Rome With Love" are far better than the awful films he made at the turn of this century), so this will at least be watchable.

And I'll see nearly anything with Cate Blanchett. Even if it does have Andrew Dice Clay.

by Anonymousreply 506/07/2013

R1, I saw the trailer this past weekend and had the same reaction. Given Blanchette was, by all accounts, a brilliant Blanche on stage this could be the next best thing to seeing that.

by Anonymousreply 607/17/2013

Cate Blanchett will win Best Actress for this. Calling it now.

by Anonymousreply 707/17/2013

Sorry, mean Blanchett.

by Anonymousreply 807/17/2013

Seeing Blanchett play Blanche on stage was akin to a religious experience. I get chills just thinking about it.

by Anonymousreply 907/17/2013

I saw the trailer recently and it looks like it'll be pretty awesome. Cate Blanchett appears to be a wealthy women with a rich fiancé who tries to convince her sister that she's broke.

Care has a very WASPY air about her throughout, and it looks like she'll have some pretty epic breakdown scenes. The only question is, on the modern Woody Allen continuum...will this be a Midnight in Paris or To Rome with Love?

by Anonymousreply 1007/17/2013

I dont think To Rome with Love was THAT bad. The problem is it followed Midnight in Paris which was is really excellent.

by Anonymousreply 1107/17/2013

Cate Blanchett is a better actor than Streep. Yeah, I said it. She deserved to win the Oscar for Elizabeth. Can't wait to see this.

by Anonymousreply 1207/17/2013

"To Rome With Love" was awful, though not his worst film. The hardest part was watching Woody, frankly, who seemed truly elderly.

by Anonymousreply 1307/17/2013

Kiddie fucker

by Anonymousreply 1407/17/2013

Will it be as boring as Interiors, the longest, dreariest 67-minute-long-film known to audiences?

by Anonymousreply 1507/17/2013

To Rome With Love was awful because of Jesse Eisenberg, who has one acting expression and looks like he was born with Tay-Sachs.

by Anonymousreply 1607/17/2013

I think it looks good too. I haven't liked anything he's done since Husbands & Wives, but this looks like classic Woody. He's great at neurotic women..especially when he finds an actress who rises to the...(I've forgotten the expression).

by Anonymousreply 1707/17/2013

I agree with R12. She has a warmth and an appearance of spontaneity that Streep lacks. It is unfortunate that Blanchett is hitting her peak in an era when there are so few great roles for women. Imagine her in the studio era with her pick of "women's pictures" roles.

by Anonymousreply 1807/17/2013

Woody's last decent film was Husbands and Wives.

Melinda, Melinda was like steaming dogshit transposed on film.

R15 is a vulgarian.

by Anonymousreply 1907/17/2013

Woody is Oscar gold for actresses.

by Anonymousreply 2007/17/2013

He really had his confidence and a lot else knocked after/during Husbands & Wives. It totally affected his creativity.

His work has been horrendous ever since. Looked like he was trying to appeal to the masses or something. The dumbing down astounded me.

by Anonymousreply 2107/17/2013

Getting some of his best reviews in years. I'm excited.

by Anonymousreply 2207/25/2013

Just saw it - Blancett will definitely get an Oscar nomination. I'm really tired of Alec Baldwin.

by Anonymousreply 2307/25/2013

I'm not loving Cate's 'American' accent at all. Not convincing.

by Anonymousreply 2407/25/2013

R15, you're a vulgarian!!

by Anonymousreply 2507/25/2013

Has Andrew Dice Clay ever apologized to the gays?

by Anonymousreply 2607/25/2013

They filmed some of it across the street from my office. I didn't know it until about an hour after they left. It was a bummer that I missed it! Looking forward to seeing it.

by Anonymousreply 2707/25/2013

Could it please be a complete story? He is stingy most of the time.

I think Woody might be a bit withholding of love and praise and resolution in his life and work. Ya think?

I want a full damn movie. Not a Spielberg movie, just a completed one that leaves me with a feeling, not some feeling almost had.

by Anonymousreply 2807/25/2013

Woody's latest have been disappointing. Vicky Cristina Barcelona could have been much better sans narrator. Scoop would have been better sans Woody.

by Anonymousreply 2907/25/2013


Blanchett probably will pick up another Oscar and it was a harkening back to Woody's masterpieces in the eighties.

Completely amazing and not to be missed.

by Anonymousreply 3007/29/2013

Kirstie Alley playing Mia Farrow to Woody Allen playing Woody Allen in Deconstructing Harry

by Anonymousreply 3107/29/2013

"I'm not loving Cate's 'American' accent at all. Not convincing."

I had the same concerns but from what I can tell from people who've seen it is that the affected, unpersuasive accents is a winning character choice. Jeanette/Jasmine is trying to sound like someone she's not, to impress as coming and going not only from money but from class when she clearly didn't come from money or class in the first place.

In other words, her Park Avenue is meant to be as convincing as Madonna's Mayfair.

by Anonymousreply 3207/29/2013

I saw it at a press screening and enjoyed it.

"Woody Allen's not as good as he was!!! He's a hack!" have become a tiresome refrain.

It's a solid film. Compare it to what else is out there. You're gonna miss him when he's gone. Smart people who know what's what should go enjoy.

by Anonymousreply 3307/29/2013

Everyone had these exact same praises about Midnight in Paris.

by Anonymousreply 3407/29/2013

INTERIORS sucked and then sucked some more.

by Anonymousreply 3507/29/2013


by Anonymousreply 3607/29/2013

Alley may be a Scientologist nutcase, but she nails that scene in Deconstructing Harry.

by Anonymousreply 3707/29/2013

Amen, R33. People who think Woody Allen exists to please them know nothing about Woody Allen. I wish they'd shut up.

Of the 43 or so films he's written and directed, I would recommend about 34 of them unreservedly. The other 9 or so, I probably haven't seen; very few of them are without worth. Several of my most favourite films, films I can watch repeatedly, films that seasons often demand be viewed (Manhattan in summer), are Woody Allen films.

The man has had an extraordinary career, by any measure. People who think otherwise are just fools. And if you can't admire Interiors, there's no hope for you. Just go away.

by Anonymousreply 3807/29/2013

Were there a lot of jokes about the Catskills, the Nuremburg Trials, Dick Cavett and other relevant topics?

by Anonymousreply 3907/29/2013

Yes, r33. There are some Allen movies I don't like but, given his prolificness, that's hardly a surprise. It's the dozen or so of his films which I love, the countless others which I have enjoyed and the innumerable great moments from almost all of his movies (no matter how successful they were as films) which will make me feel very sad that he's no longer making movies.

by Anonymousreply 4007/29/2013

I actually think Interiors is one of his better films.

What does annoy me, however, is that he never seems to get called out for borrowing pretty freely from other filmmakers and writers. I guess people are just used to his M.O. by now.

I am curious, though, does he have the characters in San Francisco living in apartments and neighborhoods that are clearly out of their league? It sounds like the Sally Hawkins character is working class, yet I assume lives within blocks of Nob Hill.

by Anonymousreply 4107/29/2013

Woody Allen's worst movies are better than most directors' best movies.

by Anonymousreply 4207/29/2013

I fucking love Cate Blanchett. She was so haughty and imperious with David Letterman. I half expected her to extend her hand for him to kiss and then wrinkle her nose at him when he did. Straight outta Elizabeth. She's the most talented female actor working today. But she also carries herself like a true star. One of a kind.

by Anonymousreply 4307/29/2013

Woody used to be innovative and have lots to say. These days, he mostly phones it in but it's great when he comes out with a gem every few years and this seems to be one.

by Anonymousreply 4407/29/2013

I saw it this afternoon. Good, not great. I was lucky enough to see CB's Blanche at BAM. She is very good but there was something that did not click for me. Also, it will be interesting to see how many grad.students write their papers on the adaptation process. No mention of Blanche's gay husband, no stud game but boxing.....

Sadly a Meh for me. However, I think it might get better after repeated viewings.

by Anonymousreply 4508/08/2013

How was Sally Hawkins in this? I like her, despite the hysterical caricature du jour in that Mike Leigh thing.

Cate really needs a LEAD actress Oscar and surely will get one one day. But this doesn't seem quite the right vehicle? What happened to Cancer Victim? She seems to have been on top form lately with her stage work, the one she did in London garnered the best reviews of her career.

I'm dismayed that this is Woody doing another of the classics and his Streetcar. I hated the one where he did La Strada.

Agree with r41, I have strange taste in Woody as I like the unpopular ones. But then I love Ingmar Bergman and Interiors was Woody doing Ingmar. Spookily it was very similar to Autumn Sonata from the same year.

by Anonymousreply 4608/08/2013

I'm with R45. I loved Cate's and Sally's performances, but the movie itself is merely a pleasant if somewhat forgettable fare.

by Anonymousreply 4708/09/2013

R46: Sally Hawkins' performance was a bit uneven. She was a bit irritating at times, but got infinitely more tolerable at the halfway point.

Cate was absolutely mesmerizing and a definite contender for Best Actress; however, the overall film was lacking.

by Anonymousreply 4808/09/2013

For R46,

The play CB did in London recently was "Big and Small" (Gross und Klein) by Botho Strauss. A weird, surreal play but she was one of the best things I have ever seen. It helped that I was sitting very close since the Barbican stage is enormous for such a play. She was fascinating, a total stage beast.

I know, Mary....

by Anonymousreply 4908/09/2013

Loved the movie. CB's performance is haunting. Not a fan of every one of his movies, but this is definitely one of his better ones.

by Anonymousreply 5008/09/2013

The movie was a very good, fresh take on Streetcar, very enjoyable, though I thought the sub-plot around the rich, aspiring politico strained belief. They were about to get engaged and he never saw where she lived? Never figured out she was a penniless, lying lunatic?

CB's performance, however, was awe-inspiring. Magnificent.

by Anonymousreply 5108/09/2013

I saw it last night...

It's definitely one of Woody Allen's best films. I was blown away by Cate Blanchett's performance (she was simultaneously lovable, loathsome, comic, and tragic), but everyone else was fairly one note. The worst of the lot was Bobby Cannavale as Chili...I get he was supposed to be the Stanley; however, he was just exhausting to watch. Andrew Dice Clay was surprisingly good and Peter Saarsgard gave his 1,000th performance as a creep.

Alec Baldwin, Louis CK, and Sally Hawkins are....there. Nothing about their performances resonated (except Sally's grating, poorly executed, American accent...which is a shame, because she was brilliant in Happy Go Lucky).

by Anonymousreply 5208/09/2013

I agree with most of your post R52, I thought Sally was excellent though. I really didn't understand why everyone spoke with a New York outer borough accent though when they're in SF.

I'd say Blanchett is a lock for an Oscar. She was sublime.

by Anonymousreply 5308/26/2013

Blanchett was excellent to be sure, but what is the likelihood that even a Park Avenue socialite has no idea how to use a computer in this day and age, particularly if she's chairing charity events?

I also couldn't believe that she didn't get fired from that dentist's office almost immediately given her behavior. Even given the dentist's feelings, it's inconceivable that Jasmine wouldn't be given the boot.

And what dentist's office these days isn't computerized? It's like Allen forgot what decade he's in.

"Peter Saarsgard gave his 1,000th performance as a creep."

His character wasn't a creep. Privileged and full of himself, yes. Unfortunately, Sarsgaard had a most unflattering hairdo.

I was also surprised at how well Andrew Dice Clay did - a smart piece of casting.

by Anonymousreply 5408/26/2013

Saarsgard has really bad skin too. He is not that old but it looked pitted and saggy. He has to be the gayest straight actor out there. That said, I like him.

by Anonymousreply 5508/26/2013

Ha, r55, I said the same thing to a friend when the movie was over -- Peter Sarsgaard is the gayest "straight" man I've seen in years.

But Cate Blanchett in this movie -- WOW!! I've always admired Cate, even thought she's given some great performances, but I've always had the impression of watching Cate "ACT" -- this time, I forgot I was watching Cate and, instead, felt like I was experiencing a genuine, real human being. An absolutely astonishing performance.

by Anonymousreply 5608/26/2013

One of the most overrated films of recent vintage. I love Cate Blanchett she's arguably one of the best actresses working in the English language right now but her performance was parts serio-comedy,partially hysterical and sometimes verged on camp.Cate's half American so you'd think that her American accent would be much better than it is in this film however someone went one step further with an American accent. Sally Hawkins' American accent was abysmal. There should be a Razzie for worst foreign actress with a terrible US accent, she would win hands down.

I hate to say it but Andrew Dice Clay was OK. However how many Brooklyn Guidos live in San Francisco? Woody seems to always do films about upper crusty New Yorkers and the ones we see in San Fran are goombas?

Peter Skaarsgard played the role of an entitled cunt too well. It seemed like he was played himself.

No matter how Cate tried in the end she came across as an unsympathetic cunt. As "real' as that personal seemed to certain people she came across a delusional,lying, half witted and insane woman. Cate played it to the hilt without a hint of subtlety. Then again that's what Woody had on the page. Oh and Cate should get one of those bought and sold Oscar nominations.Even though half American she still didn't nail an American accent. In addition, histrionics, xanax and alcohol addictions are not necessarily the stuff of great performances either.....

by Anonymousreply 5709/04/2013

I really enjoyed this movie, I thought it was his best in years and years.

I will echo the complaints about the people living in San Francisco. All these jersey type characters being used for San Francisco was bizarre.

But other than that it was great. Anyone know anything about the (not very talented) actor who played her son? I thought he had obvious gay voice during his big scene where he is yelling at her.

by Anonymousreply 5809/04/2013

The son was a genuine casting blunder, especially considering how brilliantly and inventively most of Woody's films are cast.

He in no way looked like the spawn of Alec Baldwin, and I don't mean only in the looks department.

by Anonymousreply 5909/04/2013

I enjoyed the movie very much. I think it was one of his best and devoid of the "Woody" characters I've tired off. The cast was excellent.

by Anonymousreply 6009/04/2013

I forget, but was there a reason it was set specifically in San Francisco? Is it currently cheaper to film there?

It seems like it could have just as effectively (or more so) taken place in NY.

by Anonymousreply 6109/04/2013

It was shot in NYC and San Francisco. There were even Hampton shots as well.

by Anonymousreply 6209/04/2013

R57 strikes me as kind of thick and stupid.

by Anonymousreply 6309/04/2013

Saw this film with a friend last week! It's one of those movies that cleverly hides it's hints throughtout the story through the dialouge. You have to imply lots, charaters mention things once or twice but you have to really pay attention. If you follow closely, by the end of it all you realize Jasmine's charater is a loss cause by her own doing.

by Anonymousreply 6409/04/2013

R15=zero taste. Even worse, thinks she's funny.

by Anonymousreply 6509/04/2013

Oh stop with the criticism of the accents. Americans can't stand that the top performances of recent years are being done by Brits and Aussies playing Americans and handling the accents quite well. Cate's and Sally's accents were fine and both gave superb performances that deserve Oscar noms. Bet their Amer. accents are superior to whatever those Amer. actors trying to pass themselves off as Oklahomans in "August: OC" will sound like --Streep included.

by Anonymousreply 6609/04/2013

The kind of nonsense described in R54 would never make it past an intern's script coverage at a production company if the name "Woody Allen" wasn't attached.

His writing can sometimes be good lately, and can sometimes veer into the kind of script that seems like it was written by a Martian observing life on the OWS in 1975.

by Anonymousreply 6709/04/2013

R63 strikes me as a clueless cunt. Did you even see it? It was a very overrated film by a great director. I've liked his last few films immensely but Allen's riff on Streetcar and the Madoff didn't know if it wanted to be a drama or a comedy.

R66 I'm part Australian and English and I don't mind accents provided they are done well. Sally Hawkins's accent was absolutely terrible. One of the worst ever. Sally's acting was not that great she was OK. Cate's dad was American so she is not just any other "foreign" actress. For such a great actress, her accent was still/off and just a little bit Aussie sounding.

by Anonymousreply 6809/04/2013

Horrible movie. I lasted 45 minutes and I left. Too many choppy flash backs and none of the characters are likable. A total waste for me.

by Anonymousreply 6909/04/2013

Did you ask for a refund, R69?

If you leave within 30 minutes supposedly you can get your money back.

by Anonymousreply 7009/04/2013

I liked how the "flashbacks" were integrated into the current storyline. And I was quite surprised by the big reveal towards the end. I think Cate's Oscar clip will be telling her sister what it was like to sell shoes to former friends of hers. She managed to hit a lot of buttons in that one scene, one of which was how unnerved the character seemed to be by her own downfall.

The people annoyed by Sally Hawkins will probably be annoyed by her in any movie she's in. I thought she was a perfect foil/complement for Blanchett's character: aware of her own physical and financial limitations, but possessing a kind of intuitive knowledge of people that Jasmine so clearly lacks.

Now that the other poster pointed it out though, it does seem rather stupid that Jasmine didn't know how to use a computer. That computer class seemed very 1987 (are there even "learn how to use a computer!" classes). It seemed like a plot device to give Jasmine something to do in the "A" storyline. A goal, outside of just vaguely looking for another husband.

by Anonymousreply 7109/04/2013


by Anonymousreply 7209/04/2013

Why would Blanchett's character know anything on a computer beyond accessing her email and ordering merchandise online? If she never had a job there'd be no reason to have to venture much beyond the most basic skills.

Believe me, I'm not much different!

by Anonymousreply 7309/04/2013

I hate Woody Allen movies, but this one was so un-Woody Allen-like that I loved it. Both Blanchett and Hawkins were wonderful, infusing their performances with knowing gestures and empathy.

by Anonymousreply 7409/04/2013

I wanted to like it, I really did, but, alas, I did not. I thought Blanchett was excellent, but the script and direction were lame. Woody Allen has absolutely no clue about how working people act or live, and it undermines his movies. The movie took place in SFO, yet everyone talked with a Brooklyn accent, as though that's the universal accent of the working class. So much of it just rings false. Once scene in particular bugged me was when Chili went to the supermarket where the Sally Hawkins character works, and she left the register to start working produce. I know it's a small little thing, but there is no way on God's green earth that someone in a largish supermarket can just leave the register with a line of people, and go stock corn. I know I'm throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but he's just clueless about how people live, and I just can't accept it anymore. He was once great, yes. But he no longer is; that doesn't take away from his past brilliance, but it is just that, past.

by Anonymousreply 7509/04/2013

Brilliant film. If you don't have the attention span to sit through an adult film, then fucking leave the rest of us alone to enjoy it.

by Anonymousreply 7609/04/2013

I saw it for the second time today, I think it's a masterpiece.

by Anonymousreply 7709/04/2013

"So much of it just rings false"

I find this with a lot of his movies.

by Anonymousreply 7809/04/2013

I thought Blanchett's take on Blanche for Woody was much better than her stage attempt at the original role. Woody unlike stage director Liv Ullman kept Blanchett from playing her third act from the start and having nowhere to go for three hours. There is more variety to her screen work. Having seen Blanchett on stage more than once I find her to be only a competent stage actress but she is often wonderful on film.

by Anonymousreply 7909/04/2013

I wonder why Woody chose San Francisco? Was New Orleans too obvious? Or why not just Queens for Sally Hawkins' neighborhood?

by Anonymousreply 8009/04/2013

Because San Francisco is beautiful.

by Anonymousreply 8109/04/2013

"You don't die from suffocation when you hang yourself. Your neck snaps."

This was a clunky version of Streetcar, but it was still very effective and I found it upsetting (I know, Mary). Fairly amazing take on the American class system, if a little too on the nose. I was totally absorbed. Loved that she wore the same Chanel jacket through the whole thing. Also, the sweaty pits.

Having it all and losing it must be so horrifying. Even having it all looks like a bleak proposition in itself. So much pressure and fear.

by Anonymousreply 8209/07/2013

I agree with everything R75 said.

I would add that I was frequently distracted by Alec Baldwin's high, hard booty.

by Anonymousreply 8309/08/2013

57- I don't think we were supposed to sympathize with her.

Great flick although the part where Clay just happened to see them in front of the jewelry store contrived.

by Anonymousreply 8409/09/2013

It's just opened in the UK, so I went asap. It's good enough to make one think it could have been the Great Film Allen is always yearning to make. Death of a Salesgirl, perhaps.

A bit more of Baldwin, maybe: how he managed to charm his peers and a Harvard audience, to rise so 'high', and carry the wilfully clueless 'Jasmine' with him. He couldn't have been a humouring bastard to everyone.

Plot clunks - the sister seeing Baldwin's street kiss, the jewellery store meeting, Cate getting no polite questions from the diplomat or his Manhattan parents (where did you/your late surgeon husband train, practice, what was his name, where are you living now) - could just about be seen as broad strokes in the service of Cate's super-intense and compelling descent.

She sort of won sympathy with her computer efforts and decoration plans, but then lost us with her desperate lies to the diplomat. Her snobbery just never quit. Well, clearly the film worked for me - plenty to ponder. Bravo Woody.

by Anonymousreply 8510/01/2013

"I will echo the complaints about the people living in San Francisco. All these jersey type characters being used for San Francisco was bizarre.'

Right. But why stop at Blue Jasmine? What about "Milk"?

The character of Harvey Milk is such a New York type. How bizarre that he would have lived in San Francisco.

by Anonymousreply 8610/01/2013

R86 Poorly played. Milk was a Long Island Jew who moved to San Francisco.He wasn't a guido(not to mention the movie featured three of them and Jasmine's guidette sister). San Fran Italians are nothing like the ones from NYC.

I can't wait to hear Woody look at his strained relationship with "Frank Sintara's" son,Ronan Farrow,in his next movie.It seems like Mia was fucking Frank while she was still married to Woody.

by Anonymousreply 8710/02/2013

r87, my point was this: there are people in San Francisco from all over the world, of all types, including Guidos from New York.

by Anonymousreply 8810/02/2013

It's a mediocre film that's held together by Blanchett's furious performance. Considering that Allen doesn't direct his actors (as evident from the acting of the rest of the cast) Woody should thank his lucky stars Blanchett knew exactly what to do.

by Anonymousreply 8912/18/2013

I loved the movie, but I do agree with R75 about the grocery store scene, which rang false.

by Anonymousreply 9012/18/2013

LMAO...R75 has me remembering something from Blue Jasmine that bugged me:

Jasmine supposedly walks all over San Francisco, to the point she's sweating furiously...while wearing high heeled shoes. I'm an athletic male in his early 30s and even I tend to stop and rest after walking a few miles...

by Anonymousreply 9112/18/2013

This was a DISTURBING film of generally loathsome characters, kind of like Interiors,. I had no idea. It really got under my skin. Cate was absolutely outstanding. She really lived and breathed this troubled soul. She better get the Oscar.

This character must have ended up in the loony bin? That was the most disturbing aspect. I sense no happy ending for this poor woman walking around in her sweat stained Chanel and Hermes.

by Anonymousreply 9201/27/2014

The final shot has haunted me for months now. So disturbing and sad.

by Anonymousreply 9301/27/2014

I agree with those who think that Cate Blanchette's amazing performance was the only good thing about this film. And I'm a Woody Allen fan. The subplot with the sister's love life felt like it was lifted out of a run-of-the mill sitcom, the entire backstory with Alec Baldwin was cliche and the main premise was completely ripped off from A Streetcar Named Desire. Even the way Cate's character was written was like a soap opera.

by Anonymousreply 9401/27/2014

[quote]Jasmine supposedly walks all over San Francisco, to the point she's sweating furiously...while wearing high heeled shoes. I'm an athletic male in his early 30s and even I tend to stop and rest after walking a few miles...

I just watched this yesterday. Loved Cate's performance, but... are we to think she walked to Oakland to see her stepson?

by Anonymousreply 9502/06/2014

Prepare yourselves, bitches.

by Anonymousreply 9602/06/2014

I really wanted to like this movie too - the premise is great, and I love the poster who called Blanchett's performance furious. For that is what it was. She is a furious woman, not a heartbreaking one. But Allen is not quite making fun of her either. It is a very artificial world that he throws her into. Her sister's life is not quite real, and not quite comic. Her flashback life is not fully realized either, but he is not so interested in making that as luxurious as he could. He wants to show neurotic, selfish and stylish Jasmine, floating in the underwater world of money and a dynamic husband.

Woody Allen is a terrible snob, and his working class characters are the only ones ever permitted to wear colour in his films, but of course in garish patterns and ignorance. This is his proletariat joke. The beautiful neutral shades of quiet good taste are given to Jasmine, but she sweats in them. That is supposed to register as humiliation. It does, to a point.

He gives his chic female protagonist sweat stains and large pores and a suprisingly coarse personality. Jasmine has had a hard fall and Blanchett even sounds like Blanche Dubois in some of her moments of pleading outrage. But there is no pathos there. Blanchett gives a bit of a Meryl kabuki performance, she is hard to feel for, even with her darting eyes and obvious terror. Is it a comic or tragic performance? I was not sure, even at the end. She goes furiously mad.

If "Purple Rose of Cairo" was Allen's valentine to Mia Farrow, and "Hannah and Her Sisters" began his distrust of her goodness, Blue Jasmine is a final look back.

We find out very late in this downward story of victim hood and loss and degradation that Jasmine herself knew what her husband was doing and who he was robbing and destroying, including her OWN FAMILY. She blows the whistle on him, not out of integrity or to protect others, or even self preservation. She drops a dime on him out of sexual jealousy and for revenge. She collapses her own life down in a determined moment of jealous rage. Could this be a comment on Mia? And Allen's guilt?

Jasmine never demonstrates even the most benevolent characteristics of the privileged class in the flashbacks of her previous life. The movie is either merciless on the Jasmine character or very coldly misguided. Blanchett is incredible in this part, but Jasmine is not a real person. Cate out ticks and tocks Streep, but there is this underbelly of fury and determination that she gives to Jasmine and wonderful crying and nervous energy that she spews outward. Even in her humiliations she is more righteous than heartbreaking. The audience is asked to feel the humiliation for her. I am sure this will be one of Allen's least popular films.

It is not offensive that Allen has stolen the "plot" from a Streetcar Named Desire, because he can't do anything with it. He is clever, but there is no homage. He can't spoof it, and could never understand that kind of pain. But Cate Blanchett can and has played that part and she adapts to Allen's cheap show in a way that sets us on our heads. She is the show.

Jasmine is destroyed, and there is no doubt about it and it ceases to matter why. Yet it is hard to cry for her.

Jasmine has lost prestige and comfort and money. Illusions in their way. Being cheated on was more shattering to her life than what she chose not to see or know. And yet we don't see the cheating as heartbreaking to her. It is a metaphor for all that she chose to ignore. Allen is nasty to this character.

Jasmine could not be further from Blanche Dubois. But the film's title, the script and her name rings the bell. The film is perhaps more a statement on people like the Madoffs, but that too is just a plot device. This is a look back at Mia Farrow, her actions and motivations, and their aftermath. He condemns her, and quickly removes himself. This is not a film about mental illness or how babbling people come to babble on park benches. It is Woody Allen's latest movie. He chews them up and spits them out. But Blanchett gets the biggest bite.

by Anonymousreply 9702/06/2014
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!