Customer Reviews

Metropolitan (The Criterion Collection)

5 star:		(44)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This movie glistens like a piece of old Belleek. Whether in the subtle gold of an off the shoulder evening gown, or in the vast expanse of a deep, plush, ivory colored carpet, nearly every frame shimmers with champagne like iridescence.

And gold is an apt visual metaphor, particularly when juxtaposed against the black satin of a tuxedo lapel or the wintry Manhattan night scape, for a world seemingly vanishing right before our eyes--a world too sleek, too soigné, too genteel to survive the steam roller of galloping blue-jeaned egalitarianism.

That the denizens of this vanishing breed, as depicted in the film, are themselves, insecure late adolescents, make its departure all the more poignant.

"This is probably the last Deb season..." one of them observes resignedly, "...because of the stock market, the economy, Everything..." Yes, everything...the huge smothering subject that hovers all around the plot itself and from which its characters are only temporarily insulated.

In particular, the focus here is on a group of privileged Eastern Seaboard collegians enjoying the Christmas holidays in a series of Park Avenue, "after dance parties," in which they loll about and ruefully anticipate the disappearance of their youth, their success, and their kind.

That they are one at the same time cerebral, immature, literate, prankish, frightened, polished, well educated but vulnerable and inexperienced, puts them well outside the troglodyte teens that inhabit the deconstructionist zoo in most post 1970 films, (with the exception of a unfortunate and mis-placed "strip poker" sequence which violates the picture's otherwise overall mood.)

Indeed, they seem to exist outside their own time, belonging rather to that group Cecil Beaton dubbed "the smart young things" from the 1920's, in his "The Glass of Fashion." Certainly, one imagines them far more comfortable with Ivor Novello than Mick Jagger. And like many "smart sets" they seem rather a closed corporation.

Until that is, into their number unexpectedly arrives a young man of reduced circumstances, Tom Townsend, (Edward Clements) who by virtue of his sincerity and intelligence, is invited to "sup at their table--on a borrowed pass" so to speak. His romantic misadventures with the beguiling Audrey Rouget(Carolyn Farina)forms the cynosure of the charmingly fragile plot.

Audrey and Tom stand out from the pack, in their earnestess and integrity, though it is assuredly Nick, (Christopher Eigeman) their figurehead and chief quip master who is the groups' un-elected leader. As interpreted by Mr. Eigeman, Nick is the embodiment of the cocktail fueled, cigarette wielding bon vivant--trenchant, self absorbed, far from virtuous, and with a ready verbal arrow that never misses its target. He is George Sander's heir presumptive.

Nick's observations are worth the whole price of admission as they say, whether it be bemoaning the Protestant Reformation, the social climbing Surrealists, or the scarcity of detachable collars.

Since the film's short, bouffant,cocktail dresses and automobiles unmistakably place the film in very late modernity--the Reagan era in fact, and long after the Ray Anthony's Orchestra, top hatted milieu it depicts, we cannot fail to miss the film's core observation--the parallel evanescence of the groups' own social connections, as placed against the simultaneous collapse of civilized life as we once knew it.

As the Christmas season ends, so do the nightly gatherings, and each character is forced to come to terms with impermanence--their own and everything else's. In a melancholy bar scene, an older man warns the youngsters of disappointment ahead, "I'm not destitute but...it's all so mediocre."

That Producer/Director Whit Stillman manages to fuse the personal with the sociological in such and intriguing and entrancing way is a testament to the penetration of his vision.

And, lest we miss the point, he includes a cunning shot of a significant book left on bedside table--none other than Spengler's "Decline of the West."

This 1990 film by writer-director Whit Stillman is wonderfully refreshing and intelligent. It is sure to please audiences with a taste for the avant-garde or those just looking for something a little different.

The story follows a group of upper-crust New York preppies during the Christmas debutante season. These are kids for whom black-tie balls at the Plaza Hotel and charming little soirees in Park Avenue apartments are serious matters. They are the UHB-"urban haute bourgeoisie"-a social circle carrying out traditions so anachronistic as to seem alien; traditions, in fact, which were outdated before these characters were even born.

A middle class outsider and budding socialist named Tom Townsend (Edward Clements) happens into this elite group and briefly livens things up. He shocks them with his leftist rhetoric (he is a devotee of Fourier) and anti-deb outlook, but they nonetheless find themselves drawn to him. Tom finds a kindred spirit in the cynically fatalistic Nick (Christopher Eigeman). Nick is the most self-aware member of the inner circle and he provides comic relief with his devastating ongoing critique of their lives and behavior.

Stillman's characters seem to have everything going for them. They are bright and educated and come from very wealthy families. We learn, though, that privilege is both their blessing and their curse. These children of status are destined to always remain in the shadow of their very successful parents. As one of them puts it, "We're doomed to failure." We come to realize that even though they are well-off in many ways, they still must struggle with the same insecurities and fears as the rest of us.

The characters in "Metropolitan" are the kind of people that F. Scott Fitzgerald knew so well. Indeed, if Fitzgerald had been a director rather than a writer, this is the type of film he might have made. It is intelligent and literate with dialogue that almost crackles with its liveliness and wit. "Metropolitan" gives us a rare glimpse into a world that scarcely exists anymore, if it ever really did. It is a real treasure.

One editorial review remarks "as the innocent, easily manipulated Audrey..". I seriously doubt it. You really must watch this picture several times before the parts fall into place. Take the opening scene when Tom 'accidentally' runs into Audrey's crowd. As the film later reveals Tom was given the ticket and has been sitting behind Audrey's table all night. He even went to the trouble to rent a tux for the occasion! He went to all this trouble in search of a woman by the name of Serena. The film also makes clear that he has never met anybody in the group. It's Audrey who's been looking him over. When Tom finally meets the woman, Serena, he learns that everybody writes to her and she never keeps any of them. She usually reads the very bad or the very good to her girl friends at the dorm but quickly assures him that his letters were always quite good. In fact her roommate liked them so much that she fell in love with him and kept them. Tom is horrified at this lack of privacy then stunned when he learns that Audrey was the roommate! Audrey wasn't an easily manipulated woman. One can only suspect that she manipulated Tom through the movie with the assistance of friends from time to time. Isn't it interesting that she's reading The Rector of Justin in the tanning scene? Or how she's dressed? Audrey deserves far more study in this film. Tom is far more related to Holly Martins of The Third Man. They are both struggling to learn what's happening around them. This film isn't for the one and done club. It needs more than one viewing to fully appreciate it. It was truly well done.

This was one of this first things that I ever ordered from Amazon. Where do I begin--it is a film that people either love or hate. I think that has less to do with the directing/production, which is undisputably first rate (especially considering the very low budget involved--this film was a true independent...), as it does with the pot and characters themselves. Basically, viewers either see this film as a funny, sensitive piece about intelligent young people coming to terms with who they are (camp 1) or as a gaggle of whiny preppies wallowing in emotional self indulgence (camp 2). The middle ground is small. Given the five star rating, I think it is clear that I fall into the first camp--perhaps, it helps that I came from a background that was itself somewhat preppy--the major characters actually correspond to real people that I went to college with. the sheltered life, the late night bull sessions, the excessive worry about one's future, the cynical personas (i.e. Nick Smith), the cocktail party radicalism (i.e. Tom Townsend), and the curious mix sophistication with naivete are really quite real. The acting is first rate (especially considering that the cast was all unknown at the time this film was made, although some of the actors, particularly Chris Eigeman, have done well since than), so the characters are shown vividly.

The early `90s marked the emergence of two independent filmmakers who were seen as possible heirs to Woody Allen's cinematic legacy: Noah Baumbach (Kicking and Screaming) and Whit Stillman. Stillman, in particular, has often been cited in the same breath as Allen's films. They both mine the same social strata - affluent, Upper East Side New Yorkers - for comedy. Stillman's debut, Metropolitan, is his most Allen-esque, right down to the simple opening credits sequence accompanied by jazz music. Stillman's characters, like Allen's, also speak witty dialogue loaded with literary references. However, this is where the similarities begin and end. In Allen's films, he presents upper class characters that are narcissistic and self-absorbed while Stillman tends to gently parody these qualities.

Even though their group is known as the Sally Fowler Rat Pack, Nick is their unofficial leader dominating many of the conversations with his caustic wit. Tom is seen as something of an intriguing outsider (at one point, Nick notices that he lives on the Upper West Side). He's not as rich as the others but is able to hold his own intellectually. Charlie (Nichols) doesn't like Tom because he has a thing for Audrey and knows that she fancies this social interloper. Throughout it all, Nick is Tom's way into the group and lays out the social rules for him (he shows him the proper etiquette and fashion tips). Tom is obviously the audience surrogate and along with him, we are immersed in this rarified social milieu.

Metropolitan takes place during the Christmas holidays and depicts the inevitable decline of the Sally Fowler Rat Pack, much as Charlie theories early on in the film, confirming his fears of the decline of their generation. He even attempts to define it and frets that they are doomed to decline financially, lamenting the inevitable demise of the Preppie class. He also comes up with the term "Urban Haute Bourgeoisie" or UHB (pronounced "UB") to describe his class but, in reality, it is just another word for Preppie. Initially, the characters in the movie may seem pretentious but I believe that Stillman wants us to see past this façade to the anxiety-ridden personas that lie beneath as typified by Charlie.

There is a certain timeless quality to the movie. There is no real indicator of the time period it is set in and this makes it the most enduring of Stillman's three films - Barcelona and The Last Days of Disco - that form a loose knit trilogy of doomed Preppies in love. With Metropolitan, he has created a fully realized world with well-written characters that he has real affection for and this makes for an enjoyable movie.

There is an audio commentary by Stillman, editor Christopher Tellefsen and actors Christopher Eigeman and Taylor Nichols. Stillman talks about working on a small budget and points out examples in the film where they cut costs. Eigeman and Nichols recall their impressions of working on what was their feature film debut. This is a relaxed, low-key track full of intelligent observations as you would expect from people responsible for a smart movie.

"Outtakes" features a montage of raw footage that was not used and includes blown line readings, several kinds of reaction shots for a given scene and a tribute to the film's line producer who died in 1992.

There are two clips of "Alternate Casting" with optional commentary by Stillman. In one segment we see Will Kempe as Nick Smith who Stillman says was up for the role with Eigeman but he felt that ultimately, Kempe did not have the right kind of chemistry with Edward Clements that Eigeman did.

Finally, there is a theatrical trailer.

Yes, this movie is great - one of my favorites - and is meant to be watched over and over again. SOoooo, where is the DVD? Barcelona was released on DVD with director's commentary but not Metropolitan. Last Day's is of course on DVD. There's even a Last Day's book. But no Metropolitan. The sound on the VHS version is just no good.

Metropolitan, the first of Stillman's trilogy of the lost aristocracy, is a fine example of the classical comedy. This is a very dense film, and much more than merely a comedy of manners (yet one says the same for Austen), but rather an exploration of the new lost generation: the children of the baby-boomers. In addition, these children form what would have been the aristocracy, yet in post-WWII America (or perhaps even post-civil war America, depending on your understanding of national history) the Aristocracy's place has disapeered. Not that Stillman is critiquing the Aristocracy itself, as one reviewer insinuated--far from it--Stillman is no egalitarian, and no doubt appreciates the role of class. Yet much like Descartes' example of the man with an amputated limb, who still feels sensation in that limb, these urban elites of New York are clumsily trying to fit into a mold that is antithetical to spirit of their culture. This is especially developed later in Last Days of Disco, as these Ivy-league grads who learned hard capitalism and aggresive business theory, still try to settle into their aristocratic positions allthewhile employing the economic principles they learned at college.

In this analysis of a young aristocracy without a tradition (which Stillman understands indeed in the Burkean sense), these youths spend the holidays going to dances and hanging out afterwords at each others apartments.

I don't want to offer simply a Cliff's notes to Stillman, so I won't let out all the insights that Stillman offers, while demanding much from the viewer in order to understand them. There's the enjoyment. Just pay attention to religious symbolism; that's huge for Stillman. (Ex. there is a moment in the film when one of the character's is leaving on a train, and a hymn by Luther is playing in the background) If you want some more hints, Nationalreview.com had an interview with him a while back you can probably still get, and Intercollegiate Review had a whole journel dedicated to his works a year or so ago.

Stillman is by far the greatest director around today--his cultural commentary has the weight of a Proust or Claudel--don't miss it.

Whit Stillman's film `Metropolitan' comes off like a wicked mix of Woody Allen and Robert Altman, making art out of general conversation and allowing us, the audience, to relate wholly to the situation by keeping everything grounded and within our grasp. Nothing happens within this film that could not or would not happen in reality, and that makes the concept and the end result all the more interesting. There are times where the film seems to be about nothing at all, which may be what makes the film so endearing. We become fascinated with the general conversation of these individuals, the whole time wondering what it is all really about, and then it hits us that the film is an exploration of youth in general and it's through these conversations that we get to dissect their lives.

So the film focuses on a group of upper-class socialites who find their clique infiltrated by the middle-class Tom. Tom is admittedly turned off by the needless parties these socialites entertain, and thus he immediately becomes entertaining to the higher-class preppies who find his viewpoints on their engagements fascinating. As the two worlds come together through interaction they realize that they are not so different after all. They know the same people, they read the same books; in fact it is only a social title that differentiates one from the other.

The film sheds light on the attitudes that propel these young adults through their lives as we see subtle yet powerful messages sent between parties. As young Audrey expresses her desire to court the outsider Tom we get to see just how the line between class distinctions does not mean there is a line between class in general.

The script may very well be my favorite script of 1990, maybe even the 90's in general (although that is probably pushing it a bit). It is smart and witty and insightful if one is really paying attention, and the cast of characters is truly diverse and interesting.

Each and every actor here really does a fine job of elevating the script, especially Christopher Eigeman who plays the devilishly sincere Nick Smith. His portrayal of your typical preppie is so deep-seated and authentic that he makes you feel as though you are standing right next to him, having each scene feel as though it was cut from your own reality. His charisma and charm are undeniable and his delivery is smooth as butter. Carolyn Farina is also wonderful as the tragically underappreciated Audrey, and Edward Clements soars as the outsider Tom. His watchful eye is felt throughout every frame as he takes in his acquaintances and silently judges them, never once looking at himself to see how he should be judged.

If you are a fan of Altman or Allen then this is a film for you, for it is just as witty, just as conversational and just as natural as either of the aforementioned director's bodies of work. The film may not appeal to everyone; well, it will not appeal to everyone. If you are wanting a briskly paced drama or a high octane thriller then you are looking in the wrong place, but if you are wanting a well developed and smart character study that will hold your attention despite its lack of real drama then this is the perfect film for you.

Between the lost decade of F. Scott Fitzgerald and the aftermath of the sexual and social revolution of '68, before street drugs, grundge, and now broker metrosexuals, there was once a different kind of decadence, when youth of parental privilege liberally spent their parents' fortunes but somehow still talked with genuine interest about ideas, all the while facing a dimly growing fear of failure and of falling upon leaving paradise at Princeton. This subtly satirical reminiscence of preppy life is practically peerless, perfectly fusing screenplay, acting, and cinematography. It takes place during the early 1960s on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, among young twenty-somethings who prepped at the best schools and now are Ivy Leaguers or Seven Sisters students, shortly before coeducation and the pill sexualized cloistered college life. Like Martin Scorsese's allegorical concert film "The Last Waltz" (1976), "Metropolitan" is ostensibly about another finale: "the last deb season as we know it". It is also a larger period piece of wit, wonder, and even nostalgia for an era long gone. And as a sexagenarian who once witnessed that life first-hand, I can say with some authority that its tone is perfect.

Can't watch this movie with too many people in the room. You have to LISTEN while you watch every, little portion of the film! I am sure that this is where producers found Christopher Eigeman for their commercials. He is a subtle smart-ass that doesn't seem to offend his friends.

The writing is done so well that you can't tell what year the film is placed in. Timeless I guess.

This is the first movie that made me turn the box over, note who the director is, and then go to get all the movies that he has directed. Unfortunately Whit Stillman has only done 3 so far. Our loss