MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

BLUE JASMINE: A Spoiler Thread

As requested…
bj5

Be Sociable, Share!

14 Responses to “BLUE JASMINE: A Spoiler Thread”

  1. cass says:

    Question to Woody; who says :make love” in 2013? OK maybe Jasmine since she puts n airs but then Sarsgaard’s character says it too.

  2. Yancy says:

    Since when can an artist not create his own world? In Woody’s world, people say “make love” and they also say “how do you react to my kissing you?”… This “he’s out-of-touch” criticism is rather uncompelling, especially since it’s the same flip dismissal he’s been getting for thirty years. The guy loves the pre-rock culture – how is that off-limits? Where does Allen say “this is an exact reflection of modern culture”? Who cares if he’s in touch with 2013? 2013 is dogshit!

  3. AdamL says:

    I completely believe Jasmine would use that phrase and I completely believe Sarsgaard’s character would to. It wasn’t two teenagers talking in a bar.

  4. Joe Leydon says:

    Was anyone else as surprised as I was when it’s causally mentioned that Alec Baldwin’s character killed himself in prison? Fortunately, I had not seen any reference to that in anything I read before seeing the movie. I felt like, suddenly, the movie turned several shades darker.

  5. hatersgonnahate says:

    Personally, I am shocked at the Cate Blanchett gives a performance for the ages reviews. This movies sucked ass so hard. It has interesting ideas at its core about empathy and us vs. them, but Jasmine is not a complex female character and is not an amazing portrayal by Blanchett. It’s a lazy stereotype of mental illness, all tics and nervous breakdown. Some scenes from her previous life maybe imply that she had mental issues all along, which is maybe why her husband cheated on her in the first place, and that might be interesting if it tied in with the themes of denial, but it is all too sloppy and one-note to have any real depth. I’m afraid this is my last Woody Allen movie. Won’t be fooled by the critics again.

  6. pj says:

    Jasmine has no arc. Bah humbug! But Hawkins sure does and nearly steals the show!

    Think there could be a good discussion about portrayal of mental illness here too. Good thought to bring up hater. I don’t feel like the movie answered the question thoroughly enough about Jasmine’s mental illness. Like it almost says that she is responsible for her own downfall since she was the one who called the FBI on her husband which sent her life spiraling downward. And if she was responsible for her downfall, wouldn’t she be responsible for her rebound? For as strong as her character is, she never realized that.

  7. Nick says:

    if this movie didn’t have allen’s name attached it would never have been made. sloppy first draft that needed revision after revision. what kind of computer course was she taking? and what kind of dentist’s office in 2013 does not have a computer? and what are the chances she would run into augie at the very moment she was going to pick out an engagement ring. and how long was she dating peter? was he going to ever see her apartment? horrible film. nice ending because it ended with her going whacko but “Brazil” pulled that concept off way better and 30 years ago.

  8. Joe Leydon says:

    The revelation that Jasmine did indeed drop the dime on her husband also surprised me — and intrigued me, in that, to me, it underscored just how terrible her wrath could be if anyone dared to undermine her illusions. She was absolutely convinced she had a great life with the perfect husband — and if he threatened to upset that apple cart, well, by God, she would not simply punish him, she’d damn well banish him. I look forward to viewing the movie again, to see how it plays when you know that everything that unfolds in the “present” is a result of what she did (in, really, a moment of pique) in the past.

    And since my last post, I’ve done a bit of checking: Evidently, quite a few critics and feature writers spilled the beans about the husband’s suicide. Glad I didn’t read any of that before I saw the film.

  9. chris says:

    I’m actually intrigued that you’re thinking of it as a spoiler, Joe. I hadn’t regarded that revelation as a big deal at all. Now, I’m kinda interested to re-see the movie — which I thought was only OK, although I’m in the Blanchett-is-great-in-it camp — to see if I’m wrong about that.

  10. palmtree says:

    Yes, it’s a decidedly minor Woody Allen movie (not all of his films are going to be gems but so what?).

    What I liked about it was the fluidity of going between past and present. We didn’t have to be told where we were, we just knew.

  11. Joe Leydon says:

    Chris: As I recall, we don’t learn about the suicide until after the flashback where we’re told how Andrew Dice Clay’s character won the lottery. Not terribly late in the film, to be sure, but not in the opening reel (figuratively speaking), either. Also, I think it isn’t until the 75-minute mark that we hear that Jasmine underwent electroshock treatment — which, again, kinda-sorta ups the ante in regard to how we’re supposed to view her current mental state. At least, that was my take on it.

  12. berg says:

    For Stephen Kaye and Joe Leydon:
    Criterion Collection announces the premiere of the deluxe edition, Blu-ray of Woody Allen’s September. Allen shot the film and then reshot the entire film with an entirely different cast.
    This exciting 2013 release of the 1987 film contains two discs, both Blu, one with the original Orion release version of September remastered from its original negative. The second disc contains a reconstructed version of September based on elements, previously unknown to exist, that were recently uncovered at an auto salvage cum-unit storage business owned by a guy named Mortimer Yablansky in Buffalo New York. Yablansky found the reels marked “Allen” and “September” amongst several items in a unit that had not been paid for since 2011.
    Extras include a featurette with behind the scenes on the restoration of the original version. Also included are three commentaries: one by Allen; another by Hegel scholar Vladimir Jones who discusses the duality of the characters from both version in relation to the film’s narrative arc; and yet a third by Kafka scholar Buddy Metterling who ruminates on what could have been had Allen been allowed to envision his entire concept.

  13. The Pope says:

    “ruminates on what could have been had Allen been allowed to envision his entire concept.”

    I was unaware that Woody Allen was denied complete creative control over his work from the mid-seventies through to the late 80s. I would guess that in the case of September, Woody simply reached for something and both times, failed to capture it.

    Very interested in seeing both versions, though.

  14. buddhabob says:

    felt much of the movie was contrived and that Blanchett gave a stagey performance based on her Blanche performance in Streetcar. The structure was a rip of “Streetcar” but without any poetry or filler. The relationships seemed very hastily cobbled together and contrived. Blanchett is a very technical and cagey actress and feels canned and set and preconceived. Whole thing seemed poorly rehearsed and clumsy though the theme itself is large,universal and fearsome. I think when Woody does straight drama without comedy you are left with broad depictions which do not ring true. Dice Clay and his wife were best and were both unforced,warm and real. They got little attention for their efforts. Baldwin was easy casting but not good casting, far too predictable. Why not cast a charming and seemingly innocuous Jewish guy like Maddoff? Why be so obvious? Virtually all of Blanchetts work in the flashback when her sister comes to see her in her mansion is directed poorly, heavy handed and indicated. Way over the top. Woody in drama is none too subtle though Crimes and Misdemeanors belie that and was very well done, this was tripe and made for the Oscars and didn’t fool me for one minute, sorry.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon