Midnight In Paris Analysis

1094 Words3 Pages

In both Prague by Arthur Phillips and Midnight in Paris by Woody Allen, authenticity and sincerity are ideas that preoccupy the texts. The Oxford English Dictionary defines authenticity as “the fact or quality of being true or in accordance with fact; veracity; correctness,” and sincerity as “freedom from falsification, adulteration, or alloy; purity, correctness.” Prague and Midnight in Paris explore this idea similarly; the characters presented as most desiring of authenticity and sincerity are those that are the most incorrect, unreliable, and distorted themselves. This is a comment about human nature – the people who are most attracted to authenticity and sincerity are those who least possess the traits. The dual-nature of mankind inferred …show more content…

He longs for the beauty of 1920’s Paris, the best and most livable time period: “Imagine this town in the ‘20’s. Paris in the ‘20’s, in the rain. The artists and writers!” (4:13-4:17). This fantasy by which he has been consumed becomes corporeal, “I’m Gil Pender. I was with Hemingway and Picasso. Pablo Picasso and Ernest Hemingway. I’m Gil Pender, from Pasadena. Cub Scouts…” (42:17-42:36)., and is later confirmed by the journal of a woman he encounters and pursues on his midnight strolls. Gil becomes that same embodiment of a person seeking the most authentic and novel, but through a means that makes him appear inauthentic, insincere, and a bit insane. His ideal picture of the 1920’s proves to be a mirage. Perhaps the single point at which viewers can determine that Gil is more deceptive than authentic comes at that point where Gil recognizes that fact: the 1920’s Paris he visits seems to be a construct of his own imagination, helping him unveil the things he cannot confess in his daily life. In the following scene, Gil addresses Gertrude Stein on the content of his novel, which Hemingway has also read: “‘He doesn’t quite believe that the protagonist doesn’t see that his fiancée is having an affair right before his eyes.’ ‘With?’ ‘The other character, the pedantic one.’ ‘Yeah, it’s called denial. Thank you.’” (1:24:38-1:24:58). Knowledge …show more content…

Gil learns that in order to make something of himself, in order “to write something worthwhile, I have to get rid of my illusions” (1:23:41-1:23:47); however, his lesson is short-lived and the film ends with a shot of Gil and his new romantic interest walking through Paris in the rain. The other misfortune lies with John, who does not learn from his experiences in Budapest, but imagines another ideal life awaiting him in Prague, allowing his delusions to live on: “Life will start there, at the end of this ride […] This year will be different, surrounded by seriousness. Real life awaits, birthdays, a redem…” (366). Better to be Gil, who can at least, in part, identify his disillusionment. Readers and viewers see that there cannot be both attraction to and self-riddance of these qualities; their divorce is impossible. Similarly, the divorce of ideal and authentic is necessary, but difficult to recognize. Both John and Gil are representative of an ignorance of truth: the peaceful existence of the ideal and the authentic is oxymoronic, and people often do not see this. Such is the flaw with mankind – they are doomed to choose a side, without an acknowledged existence of the

Open Document