Here’s a riddle: how many characters does it take to make a Woody Allen? Judging from Vicky Cristina Barcelona, the answer is two: one blond and one brunette. The blonde (Scarlett Johannson) is Cristina and the brunette (Rebecca Hall) is Vicky, two Americans spending the summer in Barcelona. While there, they are hustled by Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem), a notorious local artist; the plot revolves around the relationships — or lack thereof — between the three of them.
As the film progresses, Hall and Johannson even get to trade off being Woody: when Juan Antonio first persuades them to join him for the weekend, Vicky is all nervous analysis, neurotically riffing on reasons why they shouldn’t go. Cristina sits gently back, a speculative smile on her face, quietly weighing the possibilities. On the way back to Barcelona, the roles are reversed: Cristina nervously sputters Woody-isms while a pensive Vicky ponders her fate.
In some ways, this is a conventional romantic comedy: Vicky’s got an obnoxious fiancée (Chris Messina) back in the states, whose only virtues seem to be that he knows what the market is doing and where the good golf courses are. Inevitably, he’s pitted in Vicky’s mind against Juan Antonio, and — equally inevitably — comes up woefully short.
It’s in the triangle between Cristina, Juan Antonio and his ex-wife Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz) that Vicky Cristina veers off into art-movie land. Cristina moves in with Juan Antonio thinking that the bohemian artist lifestyle suits her better than the bourgeoise one she left behind. After a suicidal Marie Elena moves in with them, it becomes apparent that Cristina is a stabilizing influence upon the two of them. Soon, a romantic threesome has developed, an (apparently) stable erotic edifice.
Vicky Cristina is a remarkably pretty film; Javier Aguirresarobe’s cinematography bathes the city’s Gaudi architeture in a warm, golden glow. The music, a blend of guitar-driven fare from various Spanish artists, captures the hot-house mood of the piece nicely.
Allen handles his actors with assurance, and gets solid performances from them all. Bardem is especially effective: he invests the part of Juan Antonio, which could easily have veered into caricature, with weight and depth. He fleshes out the Latin-lover type with a kind of heavy-lidded gravitas that reveals the serious passion underneath. Cruz is nothing short of remarkable as Juan Antonio’s sometime wife: though ferociously in love, they cannot live together without the stabilizing influence of another presence. Their relationship, more than that between the titular Americans, is at the heart of the film.
Much has been written about the film’s narration, which constantly describes the action — sometimes even as it is being shown on-screen — as well as the feelings of its characters. Many observers have found it overbearing, finding it unnecessary or even lazy. I did not find it so; it reminds me of the narration Truffaut uses in Jules and Jim; as in that film, it serves as an adjunct to the action, and helps us to keep an ironic distance from what is happening on the screen.
All in all, Vicky Cristina Barcelona is a satisfying film. It is nothing if not assured, and always light on its feet. It has witty dialog with a certain amount of depth that is well-played by attractive actors. Though Allen’s themes of love, impossible and unrequited, are not new, they are explored with integrity and care. Is this new film Annie Hall or Manhattan? No . . . but what is? At the end of the day, Allen has created an amusing film about people who, if angst-filled and improbably beautiful, are nevevertheless recognizably human. After a summer of CGI superheroes played with all the gusto of cardboard, that is more than enough for me.
RSS 2.0
I would disagree with your first premise of the film — that it takes two characters. Every one of these characters was just a slightly different mood of Woody throughout the entire movie. Javier was able to exert some of his own in his character but Woody was there nonetheless. Although I felt that Cruz’s performance was very strong and enjoyable– she was also just Woody on speed.
I keep waiting for Woody to break away from himself. Woody– please, please give us a movie that is not all about you!
I agree with Pam that there were aspects of Woody in each of the characters, but it worked for me. I can see where huge fans of the man who’ve seen all his films numerous times might like to see him branch out, but I’m content to see a master reworking an area he alread knows like the back of his hand hoping to turn up something new.
For me this felt new and fresh, if for no other reason than the excellent cast and the lovely setting.
I’m also glad to see Rick defending the narration. I know it’s a point of controversy in some parts, but it worked for me.
Nice review Rick. You may have inspired me to see the movie again.
I also agree with Pam that there were aspects of Allen in all the characters, but the two American women characters were clearly his surrogates.
I think that a filmmaker as personal as Woody Allen (and Truffaut and Fellini and Godard and Altman and Scorsese … ) cannot help but make movies about themselves.
Compare to other artists: good poetry (other than the greeting card variety) is always about the poet, I wouldn’t want it any other way. Ditto for painting: Picasso never made a painting that wasn’t about himself in some way or another. Even the most representational, landscape painters inject themselves into every work.
This might be as good a way of differentiating “art-house” films as any, actually. Art house films are created not primarily for commerce’s sake but as artistic expression. They tend to be much more personal and individualistic.
There always seems to be one character in every one of his films who represents Woody when he himself isn’t in the film.
It hadn’t occurred to met that both Hall and Johansson were Woody this time, but I think you’re very perceptive in catching that.
I think I am going to have to back and rewatch “Jules and Jim,” which I have not seen for years. You’re the second reviewer I’ve read who has compared the narration in Vicky Christina Barcelona to that in the Truffaut film.
I love Jules and Jim. It’s the film that introduced me to the New Wave in general and Truffaut in particular. I think that Woody might have watched it not all that long before he conceived of Vicky Cristina
Just watched VCB again. Liked it even more.
I should probably revisit Jules and Jim now. I particularly want to pay attention to the narration.
And I agree that Vicky and Cristina are most clearly Woody’s surrogates.
Craig, in VCB, the triangle is stable, and it’s the leaving of Cristina that destroys it …
In “Jules and Jim,” on the surface at least, the presence of Catherine is destabilizing, especially given the ending …
hmmmm, methinks a rewatching of J&J is indeed in order.
I am not a big fan of VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA, but I generally love the Woodman and think JULES AND JIM one of the groundbreaking 60’s masterworks. But that’s hardly a revelatory statement.
Yeah, Sam, Vicky Cristina seems to have people blowing hot and cold. And although it’s not a revelatory statement about Jules and Jim, it certainly bears repeating.
I wonder if looking for the Woody character in each film that comes out doesn’t end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because Woody injected himself to clearly into his early work, so that (more so than any other filmmaker) he as a person is inextricably entwined with his films, everyone always seems to be looking for which character is Woody. Which means, it seems to me, that you’ll always find him, whether or not he’s really there to be found.
You could do this with any film, and it would be as equally self-fulfilling. “Will Smith is the Michael Bay character in Bad Boys, although Lawrence has hints of him, whereas Ben Affleck is the Bay character in Pearl Harbor, and Megan Fox, surprisingly, is the Bay surrogate in Transformers.” I realize I’m stretching with that analogy, but saying that Hall, Johannson, Bardem, and Cruz are all “Woody characters” seems a tad on the ridiculous side.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Woody Allen is interested in the neurosis associated with love, and that this film has, as many of his films do, that quality? It just seems silly to go fishing for which character represents Woody the most each time one of his films come out.
Evan, I’m not sure Woody’s movies are any more personal than a variety of others … it seems to me the Fellini and Truffaut and Bergman, say, made at least as personal films as Allen.
I think the reason people go Woody-hunting is that until fairly recently, he was in each of his films, in person, and he always had the same nervous, neurotic, self-analytical personality. So when Woody isn’t acting in one of his films, people to look for that character, and many times, it’s genuinely there.
I suppose it would be more accurate to say that Hall and Johannson are “Woody character surrogates,” more than carriers for his ideas. In a few of the scenes, you could have thought it was the Woody persona in drag.
As you say, it is accurate to say the Woody’s interested in the neuroses associated with love, and that naturally it pervades his film.
In my initial response to Pam and Craig, I conflated the two arguments (as perhaps Pam did as well) by going on about artists making films about themselves.
Hi! Rick, I have not watched director Woody Allen’s film “Vicky, Cristina and Barcelona yet!…but after reading so many “mix” reviews of Woody’s film VCB…hmmm…maybe, I can still watch this film with an “open” mind!…Btw, Thank~you! for the artist link…What artist?…Paul Schrader, his essay on film noir is now a considered a “classic” must read and I would think not only by people who(m) consider themselves “film noir fanatics.”
Thanks,
dcd
Your welcome. It’s a classic indeed.