Woody Allen cannot make a quality film every single year. He just can't. But even in his lesser efforts, the movie is always about something, whether it be a dramatic (or comedic) focus on damaged characters or maybe another of his many stabs at existentialism. In the case of "Café Society," I was confused about Woody's intent since the film is not funny, nor is it thought-provoking or really even entertaining.
True, we have Bobby (Jesse Eisenberg), another one of Allen's coming-of-age protagonists from New York who brings his youthful naïveté to Hollywood of the 1930s. Bobby commands most of the screen time, but Allen did not infuse Bobby with any endearing or charismatic qualities.
For scene after scene, I found the character to be so bland and pointless that I could not root for him. Instead, we just wait for the next moment of plot to come dropping on the character's head while the new-found glamour of Hollywood surrounds him.
Further, Allen's scattershot script tries to include his oft-used device of a love triangle, and the one in this film is among his most muddled. We know that Bobby is the type who'll easily succumb to the charms/skirts of his Uncle Phil's secretary Vonnie (Kristen Stewart), and when we find out that Vonnie's boyfriend is really Uncle Phil himself (Steve Carell), we know someone's heart is going to broken by somebody in this trio.
But when Allen's script has Phil shifting his love from his wife to Vonnie, then from Vonnie back to his wife, then back to Vonnie again, we ask the question of ... why? It's not made clear to me. Consequently, it's a triangle where no one cares who's paired with who before long. And Carell's portrayal of Phil cannot make him a character we care about, as he is just as yawn-inducing as Bobby.
I also kept asking "why" when I saw the story abruptly changing focus to show us Bobby's brother Ben and his gangster ties in New York. In a curious plot deviation, we see Ben assisting with a murder plot of a mean-and-mad next-door neighbor to help two characters in the film, then later going to the electric chair for it. Again, the inclusion of this character felt so randomized, I kept wondering why we are supposed to care.
If there's a redeeming quality to this whole mess, it's the film's visual appeal. The costuming, the sets and the cinematography are all Oscar-worthy in their authenticity. Allen clearly was trying to make a piece of nostalgia here, and the LOOK of the film is simply breath-taking.
His other attempts to wax nostalgic just don't shine. Yes, we hear a parade of famous names, such as Joan Crawford, Paul Muni, Adolphe Menjou, and Barbara Stanwyck, but there's hardly anything substantive; as if sheer name-dropping by Allen would suffice to create a loving tribute to the 1930s.
Allen, at his worst, still makes films that try to do ... something. In other words, Allen does not seek to get rich off his movies by selling the masses the commercialized movie brainlessness that makes billions in box office sales. He genuinely tries to portray ideas, comedics or characters that are worthy of our attention.
That's why "Café Society" is completely baffling to me. I know Allen was trying to accomplish something. Very frequently, Woody is out to make a thought-provoking film, no doubt about it.
But I don't think the bewilderment that's plaguing my mind are the thoughts he wanted to provoke.
True, we have Bobby (Jesse Eisenberg), another one of Allen's coming-of-age protagonists from New York who brings his youthful naïveté to Hollywood of the 1930s. Bobby commands most of the screen time, but Allen did not infuse Bobby with any endearing or charismatic qualities.
For scene after scene, I found the character to be so bland and pointless that I could not root for him. Instead, we just wait for the next moment of plot to come dropping on the character's head while the new-found glamour of Hollywood surrounds him.
Further, Allen's scattershot script tries to include his oft-used device of a love triangle, and the one in this film is among his most muddled. We know that Bobby is the type who'll easily succumb to the charms/skirts of his Uncle Phil's secretary Vonnie (Kristen Stewart), and when we find out that Vonnie's boyfriend is really Uncle Phil himself (Steve Carell), we know someone's heart is going to broken by somebody in this trio.
But when Allen's script has Phil shifting his love from his wife to Vonnie, then from Vonnie back to his wife, then back to Vonnie again, we ask the question of ... why? It's not made clear to me. Consequently, it's a triangle where no one cares who's paired with who before long. And Carell's portrayal of Phil cannot make him a character we care about, as he is just as yawn-inducing as Bobby.
I also kept asking "why" when I saw the story abruptly changing focus to show us Bobby's brother Ben and his gangster ties in New York. In a curious plot deviation, we see Ben assisting with a murder plot of a mean-and-mad next-door neighbor to help two characters in the film, then later going to the electric chair for it. Again, the inclusion of this character felt so randomized, I kept wondering why we are supposed to care.
If there's a redeeming quality to this whole mess, it's the film's visual appeal. The costuming, the sets and the cinematography are all Oscar-worthy in their authenticity. Allen clearly was trying to make a piece of nostalgia here, and the LOOK of the film is simply breath-taking.
His other attempts to wax nostalgic just don't shine. Yes, we hear a parade of famous names, such as Joan Crawford, Paul Muni, Adolphe Menjou, and Barbara Stanwyck, but there's hardly anything substantive; as if sheer name-dropping by Allen would suffice to create a loving tribute to the 1930s.
Allen, at his worst, still makes films that try to do ... something. In other words, Allen does not seek to get rich off his movies by selling the masses the commercialized movie brainlessness that makes billions in box office sales. He genuinely tries to portray ideas, comedics or characters that are worthy of our attention.
That's why "Café Society" is completely baffling to me. I know Allen was trying to accomplish something. Very frequently, Woody is out to make a thought-provoking film, no doubt about it.
But I don't think the bewilderment that's plaguing my mind are the thoughts he wanted to provoke.