{"id":3230,"date":"2013-09-09T00:00:19","date_gmt":"2013-09-09T04:00:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/smugfilm.com\/?p=3230"},"modified":"2013-09-08T19:30:48","modified_gmt":"2013-09-08T23:30:48","slug":"blue-jasmine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/blue-jasmine\/","title":{"rendered":"Blue Jasmine: Woody Allen\u2019s Most Visceral Film In Damn Near Ever"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"jasmine\"
\n

\nBlue Jasmine<\/a> (2013)
\n<\/b><\/span><\/b>Written and Directed by Woody Allen (Duh)
\n98 min.<\/p>\n

Woody Allen is my absolute favorite filmmaker, so it\u2019s kind of funny that I\u2019ve never reviewed one of his movies on here (not counting my brief glowing endorsement of Zelig<\/a> in my 10 Films Every Libertarian Should See<\/a> list). I guess I just don\u2019t really have much to say about his films, which isn\u2019t true, but fuck you I just don\u2019t feel like it. Basically, I like, or like<\/i> like, or love all his movies, and I definitely have lots of things to say about them, but where to start? Do I just do a series of lists, each covering a different decade? I guess. That\u2019s probably the best way to go about it. But fuck you, that sounds like a lot of work. So I\u2019ll just review Blue Jasmine<\/a> for now, and do all that other stuff in the future, which most scientists agree is far, far away and not at all worth thinking about.
\n
\nSo anyways, let\u2019s get down to business. \u201cWhat business is that,\u201d you might ask, \u201cthe blowjob<\/i> business?\u201d Well sure, the glowing title of my review may lead you to believe this will be a blowjob of a review, and as such, not at all worth reading. But you\u2019re wrong. Brace thy selves, because I\u2019m about to drop a bomb: Blue Jasmine is not perfect, by any means. In fact, it\u2019s a deeply flawed film. (Insert audible gasp from your mouth.)<\/p>\n

Some of Allen\u2019s work is so perfect it feels like he spent years on it (even though he only ever spends a few months) but some of it, like this one, feels, well, unsanded<\/i>. There\u2019s definite craftsmanship, and you can sit down in the chair that is this film in this weird yet sense-making metaphor and enjoy yourself, but here and there a splinter will prick you. And I\u2019m not talking about groaner lines, which every Woody Allen movie has a few of. In fact, call me lame, but I tend to like those. \u201cI\u2019m running out of obsequious banter,\u201d from Melinda & Melinda<\/a>, is one of my absolute favorites. Y\u2019all may roll thine eyes at how horribly these lines come off the tongue no matter how great an actor the actor is that is delivering them, but I think they\u2019re delightful. So no, I\u2019m not talking about those, or any other stylistic flourish. I\u2019m talking about legitimate filmmaking mistakes.<\/p>\n

Though Blue Jasmine may be Woody\u2019s most visceral film in ages (I\u2019ll get to exactly why later) it\u2019s also his shoddiest. For instance, it may be 98 minutes, but the thing feels significantly longer, as though a good 15 could\u2019ve been cut. It\u2019s a repetitive movie, and not all the scenes are necessary\u2014some, in fact, accomplish the same exact task a previous one has, or just belabor the general goings on by over-explaining a plot point that could\u2019ve been explained with a line or two, or even a character\u2019s wayward glance or something. Blunders like these may not be immediately detectable to your layman filmgoer, but anyone who knows even basic scene construction can see this sort of thing pretty clearly. (The aforementioned layman will certainly sense<\/i> something is off though, because mistakes like these always bog down the pace and cause boredom.)<\/p>\n

But the film isn\u2019t just flawed at the script level. It\u2019s flawed on a technical level too. Basic fundamentals are sloppy here\u2014specifically, blocking and eyelines and focus pulling. Apparently, the budget on this one was quite constrictive, as is the case with pretty much every Woody Allen movie, sure, but apparently this time they had very little money for costumes, and had to rely on a ton of favors. I suspect corners were cut in other areas as well, because it\u2019s fucking amateur hour as far as the guys working the camera and figuring out the shots. The cinematographer, Javier Aguirresarobe, had previously DP\u2019d Vicky Cristina Barcelona<\/a>, which is a very good looking movie, but based on the rest of his filmography, I\u2019m guessing that might\u2019ve been a fluke. He\u2019s DP\u2019d a lot of alarmingly ugly movies, such as two Twilight<\/a> flicks and The Road<\/a>. Perhaps it\u2019s not his fault though. For all I know, maybe he was just saddled with inexpensive, untalented help. Whatever the cause, it\u2019s quite clear that the actors weren\u2019t told well enough where they should be standing and looking, and that the camera guys weren\u2019t sure when they should be pulling focus. (Thankfully, Santo Loquasto\u2019s production design is as lovely as ever, so these issues aren\u2019t as grating as they could\u2019ve been.)<\/p>\n

These problems aside, the acting is mostly great. I say mostly, because a couple unimportant characters played by unknown actors drop the ball. But everyone you already know the name of is fantastic in this. In particular, a lot of people have been going gaga over Andrew Dice Clay\u2019s performance, all surprised that he can act or something, which is amusing. The man has been acting for damn near thirty years<\/i>. That Diceman character is a character<\/i>, you jackanapes. But this is par for the course\u2014intellectual types never<\/i> give comedians with mass appeal who do characters their due. These snooty fucks will go on for days about how brilliant Daniel Day Lewis is, and how immaculately he disappears into roles, then dismiss Larry the Cable Guy or Tracy Morgan as misogynistic and homophobic, completely missing the fact that they\u2019re acting <\/i>and that the joke is always on the fictional character they so skillfully disappear into, and not any actual targets. (But I digress\u2014this could be a whole separate essay.)<\/p>\n

There\u2019s been some buzz about Cate Blanchett being a possible shoe-in come awards season, and I\u2019d say that\u2019s probably true. She fucking destroys <\/i>in this. Here\u2019s an actress who I always thought was talented, but was never truly on my radar. I\u2019ve liked her in <\/i>things, sure (The Gift<\/a> is a hell of an underrated gem) but she never struck me as one of those five-star actors capable of fully becoming a character and elevating it to a transcendent level where you\u2019re not even sure what it is you\u2019re watching anymore, because it\u2019s certainly not a movie, it\u2019s more some four-dimensional gaping hole in the screen like in that movie theater scene in Donnie Darko<\/a>. The woman doesn\u2019t play one wrong note the entire movie. She is <\/i>Jasmine. And if she doesn\u2019t take the Golden Globe and the Oscar, then those awards shows are fucking shams oh wait they already are and I don\u2019t care about them whatsoever phew that\u2019s a relief.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut where\u2019s the visceralness?\u201d you might be asking, because you\u2019re stupid and don\u2019t know that \u2018visceralness\u2019 is not a word. Well, the \u2018visceralness\u2019 lies in how, by the end of the movie, these elements\u2014the mistakes and<\/i> the masterful strokes of genius\u2014magically come together. You see, the character of Jasmine is unstable as shit. I\u2019m talking out-of-a-Cassavetes-film unstable. And I don\u2019t know about you, but I don\u2019t mind a few splinters when I\u2019m watching a Cassavetes film. It doesn\u2019t get in the way\u2014in fact, I think it enhances the experience, because since the main character is so unstable, it\u2019s okay if the camera and the script is a little unstable too, ya dig? Of course ya do. And if ya don\u2019t, you\u2019ve been warned: this movie is not for you. Go watch Zelig, you enjoyer-of-things-that-are-wholly-perfect.<\/p>\n

4 out of 5 Codys.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\"jasmine\"
\n

\nBlue Jasmine<\/a> (2013)
\n<\/b><\/span><\/b>Written and Directed by Woody Allen (Duh)
\n98 min.<\/p>\n

Woody Allen is my absolute favorite filmmaker, so it\u2019s kind of funny that I\u2019ve never reviewed one of his movies on here (not counting my brief glowing endorsement of Zelig<\/a> in my 10 Films Every Libertarian Should See<\/a> list). I guess I just don\u2019t really have much to say about his films, which isn\u2019t true, but fuck you I just don\u2019t feel like it. Basically, I like, or like<\/i> like, or love all his movies, and I definitely have lots of things to say about them, but where to start? Do I just do a series of lists, each covering a different decade? I guess. That\u2019s probably the best way to go about it. But fuck you, that sounds like a lot of work. So I\u2019ll just review Blue Jasmine<\/a> for now, and do all that other stuff in the future, which most scientists agree is far, far away and not at all worth thinking about.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25,1],"tags":[863,2622,2655,2656,32,1396,2663,2659,2658,2657,2664,104,185,2662,2660,2661,81,607,2588],"class_list":["post-3230","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allposts","category-codysreviews","tag-andrew-dice-clay","tag-blue-jasmine","tag-blue-jasmine-review","tag-cate-blanchett","tag-cody-clarke","tag-donnie-darko","tag-golden-globe","tag-javier-aguirresarobe","tag-melinda-melinda","tag-melinda-and-melinda","tag-oscar","tag-smug-film-2","tag-smugfilm","tag-the-gift","tag-the-road","tag-twilight","tag-vicky-cristina-barcelona","tag-woody-allen","tag-zelig"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3230","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3230"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3230\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3236,"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3230\/revisions\/3236"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/smugfilm.com\/oldsite\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}