If you were to guess based off the name Whit Stillman what kind of movie he would direct, you would probably come up with something approximating Metropolitan. Both he and his film feel like they would be most comfortable in the Edwardian era and the comedy of manners sensibilities of P.G. Wodehouse. He apparently did intend the film not to be set in the modern day, but didn’t have the budget enough to convincingly replicate a period setting. But of course his characters, barring just a couple, all feel ripped from another time and place -posh and aristocratic in a way I can’t imagine even the most egregious elites of the modern day trying to keep up. But then, that itself is a notable facet of the film.
The movie is set in the midst of ‘debutante season’ on the Upper East Side of New York -which coincides with Christmas- and follows an outsiders view into the insular lives and traditions of a crew of wealthy young socialites. Due to a mix-up, an educated but middle-class Princeton student Tom Townsend (Edward Clements) is inducted into a club of young elites. As he hobnobs and cautiously befriends them -torn over his left-wing dismay towards the wealthy, he finds himself caught in the crosshairs of an awkward romantic situation as well as debates over class and wealth and what the future looks like for these kids of privilege.
 |
There is something of a Noah Baumbach-style youthful intellectualism permeating the script, and the film does share an actor, Christopher Eigeman, with Baumbach’s own debut Kicking and Screaming five years later. Though any air of pretension here is pretty intentional given the style of the characters involved -and it is genuine pretentiousness in some instances given these characters, and especially Charlie (Taylor Nichols), don’t actually know much of what they’re talking about. Tom does, and to a certain degree so does Audrey (Carolyn Farina), a Jane Austen-obsessive with a crush on Tom (in spite of his hatred of Mansfield Park and open admission he reads criticism of novels instead of the works themselves). They are two of the central figures of the film’s amusing love quad, where Tom is still harbouring feelings for an ex-girlfriend Serena (Ellia Thompson) within the orbit of the club while Charlie is fairly obviously infatuated with Audrey. Tom is inducted into the group primarily to be Audrey’s formal escort to events simply because there is no other boy to serve that role -it doesn’t necessarily preclude romance, as evidenced by Nick (Eigeman) and his partner Sally (Dylan Hundley) loathing each other. Most of their traditions, including meeting to play bridge or engaging in formal cocktail affairs -in requisite full evening dress and tails where applicable- is highly anachronistic and viewed with curious scepticism by Stillman, amused by their strict social graces and occasional philosophical arguments in support of the upper class. They even identify themselves with the Marxist notion of the bourgeoisie, construed as a positive -yet this is played with more pity than judgement. Stillman draws these wealthy youths as figures of power certainly, but also as people wildly out of scope with the pace of the world and they know it. They cling to their traditions, fearful -sometimes openly so- that they can’t get by in a reality without them.
Stillman encourages affection for these people, much as he wittingly mocks their dispositions and tastes -he points to a lack of separation in these with Tom, who while lacking in wealth has benefited from a certain prestige in his education and associations. And gradually the movie endeavours to ground folks like Audrey and Charlie and even Nick. It doesn’t come down hard on wealth being an inherent character flaw -though it does point to generational wealth and prestige as alienating. On the accessibility of their club, Nick encourages Tom that barring his formalwear it is a free society, and recommends some places he considers affordable for these kinds of clothes -the implication is they are anything but. Many of these young people engage superficially with the issues of the world through what they read but have no understanding of how it actually works.
One place where Stillman is modestly sincere is the romantic entanglements that trump to some degree issues of class. And he builds to a very conventional indie romantic conclusion out of it -not a complaint, I happen to like those. His filmmaking is quite interesting as well, notable by a series of beats that fade in and out apparently for single jokes or observations at a time -something reminiscent of silent films. Of course the film is lit with elegance and a regal use of colour, the cinematography by John Thomas very crisp and exquisite, drawing the environments in an attractive glow that conveys the aesthetic appeal Tom isn’t quite able to resist. And yet the world outside is appropriately nebulous -these kids of course never having to deal with the New York of everyday New Yorkers.
Metropolitan is a distinct movie undoubtedly. Stillman is clearly a fan of Jane Austen, and both his choice of setting and structure reflect this. So too does his sharp and charming script, which was nominated for an Oscar. A look at an archaic world as it was vanishing with a sense of sympathy for those desperate to hang on and mourning its loss, if not necessarily for the loss itself.
Looking for an alternative Christmas movie this year? How about a drama centred on a dysfunctional family at home for the holidays -only they happen to be medieval royals. Based on the play of the same name, The Lion in Winter is the story of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitane, bitter and estranged from each other as they play their own adult children against one another in a scheme of succession during Christmas of 1183. It feels very much like the show Succession, only with less corporate machinations and more threats of marriage alliances, treason and violence. A deeply interesting and engaging film on the dynamics of power and politics against a shimmering Christmas backdrop that is as warm as the characters are cold. The film boasts an exquisite cast including Anthony Hopkins as the young Richard the Lionheart in his earliest film role and a scene-stealing Timothy Dalton as Philip II of France. But the movie is built on the captivating performances of Peter O’Toole as Henry and Katharine Hepburn as Eleanor -for which she won her third Oscar. Their chemistry in opposition is fierce and magnetic -a powerful couple for a powerful movie.
Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/jordanbosch.bsky.social
Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/jbosch
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Comments
Post a Comment