**** (out of ****)
"The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates
Woody Allen's Rifkin's Festival (2020) is the comedy master filmmaker's third film subjugated to the firestorm brought on by hypocritical, self-righteous liberal social justice warriors, engaged in faux outrage concerning child molestation charges against Allen, allowing the mob to capitalize on the political winds of the times. Unfortunately, it's a shame. Rifkin's Festival is the most enjoyable time I've had watching a Woody Allen film in several years. It is one of 2020's best films. Not since Magic in the Moonlight (2014) have I had such a good time, and I was in the minority opinion on that one.
Rifkin's Festival, like Allen's previous films, is a new interpretation on themes Allen has explored in the past, as well as Allen's version of the Socrates quote. This is what the great filmmakers like Allen do. They attempt to reinvent the wheel, searching for new ways to express their favorite themes. That should cut-off the Woody Allen critics that consistently (and annoyingly) repeat themselves saying Allen makes the same movie over and over again. I can't wait for the day the sheep (movie critics) and the public come to this realization regarding comic book movies!
Allen's latest comedic delight, a glowing love letter to the history of cinema, follows Mort Rifkin (Wallace Shawn), a one-time college professor of film history. Suspicious his publicist wife, Sue (Gina Gershon) is having an affair with her client, filmmaker Philippe (Louis Garrel), Mort (a possible reference to Allen's hero, the "father" of stand-up comedy, Mort Sahl) decides to accompany her to the San Sebastian Film Festival. The two won't be able to spend much time together however as Sue and Philippe attend various press conferences, confirming Mort's beliefs. In his alone time, Mort examines his life and questions what kind of man he really is. The juices of life begin to flow in him once again as he diverts himself in a one-sided flirtation with a doctor, Jo Rojas (Elena Anaya). It creates a rich comedic scenario involving Mort coming up with different medical problems to make appointments with the doctor. It made this reviewer recall classic Woody Allen of the 1960s and 70s.
It is only in his dreams Mort confronts his shortcomings but as reenactments of famous scenes from films directed by Jean-Luc Godard, Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Orson Welles, and Luis Bunuel. The movie's structure as a whole resembles Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries (1958) which not only gets a reenactment here but was an inspiration for two prior Allen films - Another Woman (1988) and Deconstructing Harry (1997). The reenactments within themselves will make film lovers smile and provide Allen the opportunity to joke he has directed some of cinema's most famous scenes.
This surreal comedic invention Allen has devised may make some recall not Bergman but Allen's own Midnight in Paris (2011), where a Hollywood writer (Owen Wilson) is transported back to 1920s Paris, allowing him the opportunity to mingle with his literary heroes. This time around Mort is transported into the movies he loves, which end up teaching him about himself and life. Is it a comment on our relationship with movies and how through movies we interpret our own lives?
Mort's memory festival leads him to the conclusion others view him as pompous and out of touch with mainstream taste, lacking an understanding of the common man's sensibilities. A point which is hit home in Mort's relationship with his brother (Steve Guttenberg). Mort dated Doris (Tammy Blanchard) but she viewed him as too cerebral. He took her to see movies she didn't understand. In the end, Doris married the brother. We also learn of Mort's pursuit to finish a novel. It becomes a fruitless exercise since he will never met the expectations he has placed on himself, becoming the next Dostoevsky. If Mort can't achieve greatness, why bother? But is it a crutch he has placed on himself, serving as a justification for never having to complete anything?
Whether it has been done by Woody Allen, Ingmar Bergman or Anthony Asquith, as in his brilliant The Browning Version (1951), the introspective examination of one's life has always thrilled me as a subject matter for a film. One reason is because I believe Americans don't take any time to truly examine their actions and contemplate their motives. As a country we aren't big on self-examination. We are impulsive and allow our fickle feelings to control a majority of our decisions ranging from dating to politics and everything in-between.
In this context one of the questions becomes, what does Allen, as the film's writer and director, think of Mort? What message is Allen trying to impart on the viewer? It doesn't feel as if Mort comes to any groundbreaking realizations about himself and the meaning of life. This would be one of the shortcomings of the movie. Instead we have a gentle story touching upon big issues. Rifkin's Festival probably wouldn't have met Mort's standards of if the end result isn't going to be Dostoevsky, why bother. But how many other filmmakers gift us with films about existentialism and reference Camus and works such as The Myth of Sisyphus? How many other films and filmmakers have the confidence an audience will understand these references?
As usually happens, some viewers will search for clues on what this movie says about Woody Allen as a man. What secret message is he trying to tell us? What justification of his life is he sneaking into the movie? Is Mort really Woody Allen? Mort taught film but admits he doesn't understand today's cinema. Is Allen a filmmaker who no longer understands today's cinema and the movie industry as a whole? Is Allen a pompous man who has lost his common man's touch? As I have stated, the dream sequences in the movie revolve around classic European films directed by filmmakers that may not mean much to the population in America. Are Allen and his references out of date? Would Allen have been better off having the film references be more modern and identifiable to college age film students?
With Woody Allen not appearing in the movie, his last appearance was in To Rome with Love (2012), there is the casting of what is known as the surrogate Allen character. This time around that character is played by Wallace Shawn. While I've always enjoyed seeing Shawn on-screen and he has been a frequent Allen collaborator appearing in Manhattan (1979), Radio Days (1987) and Melinda & Melinda (2005), he isn't the most charismatic of actors. He doesn't get all of the mileage an actor like Allen could have gotten out of the role. It was a similar problem with Allen's prior film, A Rainy Day in New York (2019). There it was Timothee Chalamet as a younger Woody Allen but Chalamet was incapable of delivering Allen's dialogue. Shawn is a much, much better Allen substitute than Chalamet but nowhere near as effective as Allen could have been. Though we understand the myriad of reasons why Allen couldn't cast himself - from his age (we are an ageist society) to audiences' dislike for Allen. However, Shawn isn't as sympathetic a figure as Allen has previously been. I say that understanding the social climate of our times but rewatch Allen in Annie Hall (1977) or Crimes & Misdemeanors (1989) or any of his early comedies. He was the loveable loser, the underdog we cheered for who understood our fears and social hang-ups. This casting hurts the movie and the character from being even funnier. Sadly, Allen probably has limited casting choices.
Gina Gershon's performance is a mixed blessing. On one hand she hasn't been this wonderful to watch in a movie in years! On the other hand Allen hasn't given Gershon much to work with. Gershon's Sue character isn't one of the great neurotic females actresses like Diane Keaton played in the past. It would have also been nice if Allen had written some jokes for the character, though Gershon is involved in a terrific parody dream sequence of Bergman's Persona (1967). It comes off much better than the parody done in Allen's Love and Death, offering another glimmer of the classic Woody Allen I came to admire as a teenager. Also unfortunate for Gershon, Allen and the legendary cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (marking their fourth collaboration) don't accentuate her beauty and sexuality. Sue like the other characters are pawns in Mort's story and aren't developed fully. That's not a criticism, merely an observation.
The only other performance / character worth mentioning is Elena Anaya as Dr. Rojas. The character has more of a symbolic meaning to the story, representing promise and a new vitality in Mort. It counters Mort's relationship with Sue. Whenever Mort is shown with Sue, Mort is discarded as all of Sue's attention is centered on Philippe. It is only when Mort is with Dr. Rojas does Mort appear happy. As such the doctor is written more sympathetically than Sue and despite the usual complaints of Allen's films, this isn't a story of an older man dating a younger woman. As I already mentioned, the flirtation between the two is one-sided.
The last thing I will highlight enjoying about Rifkin's Festival is the musical score by Stephane Wrembel. Instead of using classic jazz recordings, Allen has brought Wrembel on as the film's composer. Wrebel is a jazz guitarist in the tradition of the great Django Reinhardt. Allen and Wrembel collaborated on Midnight in Paris and Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008). Being a jazz lover myself, I had the pleasure of hearing Wrembel here in Chicago, at a well known jazz club, The Green Mill. He sat in with the resident band at the club. Full disclosure, my father was a member of the band. The music is a joy to listen to though it has a Parisian vibe to it even though we are in a Spanish setting.
Rifkin's Festival appeals to me because I'm mentally in the right demographic. I'm an old soul who can relate to Mort's dilemma, his befuddlement of modern day film culture and his love of classic cinema. I have asked myself the same big questions Mort does and have reached similar conclusions. And, most importantly I laughed and smiled watching the movie. A Fellini sequence made me smile endlessly for example.
I must go back to my opening remarks concerning the treatment the movie has received from the sheep (movie critics) and the public's treatment of Allen himself. I encourage you to read some of the headlines and reviews written about the movie. So much of it centers negatively on Allen the man. One would get the impression these people have something against him. You may not care because their feelings mimic your own but it isn't professional.
Yes, I question the motives of Allen's critics and do feel they are being hypocrites. Why? I believe people create any justification to support their opinion, even if those justifications contradict prior opinions. So, you believe Woody Allen molested someone? Do you still listen to Michael Jackson's music? I still hear his music being played on the radio. Did you know in 2020 he was the highest paid dead celebrity? Have you stopped watching Roman Polanski movies as well? He actually admitted to his charges. So, you follow the #MeToo mantra that we must believe all women that come forward with allegations? Did you vote for Joe Biden? He was accused of raping a woman. Did you vote for Donald Trump? He was also accused of sexual misconduct. Did you mourn the death of Kobe Bryant? Did you know he was accused of sexual assault and ended up making a cash settlement?
My obvious point is we pick and chose who and what we want to believe and will try and justify our rationale. People are being hypocrites. Am I guilty of the same? Sure! I don't mean to imply otherwise. The difference? I admit it. Will you? I can't pass today's "purity test". Can you? Its none of your business but I condemned Trump on the sexual assault charges AND voted for Biden against my better judgement. Society told me my first priority was to remove Trump. I believed those that accused Harvey Weinstein but I continue to watch Woody Allen and Roman Polanski movies.
At the end of the day I don't care about any of these accusations. Not because I am a rapist, a misogynist, a pedophile, an ax murderer, a Devil worshiper or whatever else you want to call me (pick your poison) but because of distance. Distance? I don't know Woody Allen or any of these celebrities personally. I don't know their accusers either. I simply watch their movies or listen to their music because I like it. I separate the artist from their art. That works both ways. I also don't care about all the good causes a celebrity champions. It won't make me like them more. None of these issues have any immediate impact on my life. That doesn't mean I lack empathy or I don't care about social and political causes. I care about worker's rights and their fight to unionize and make a living wage (I already make well over the minimum wage). I care about providing people with free college education (I already graduated from college). I support universal health care, taking money out of politics, ending the pay gap between men and women and local issues like lead piping contaminating our water in Chicago. That's my justification.
Rifkin's Festival, like so many other Woody Allen films, is smart, observant, and funny. If any other filmmaker had brought us this movie, it would be celebrated as a charming surreal fantasy. But the political left is taking their cues from the Fascist right and want to ban art. It is shameful U.S. audiences aren't allowed to see this movie! What will the left do when they find out Allen has written books? Burn them? Rifkin's Festival was one of the best films of 2020.
Posts
