Stuart Murdoch, the man, the myth, the twee. And now the writer/director?

Twee is a derogatory term for a genre frequently criticized for it's false sincerity and sentimentality. Turn to urban dictionary and you come up with definitions like “to be obnoxiously sweet, or quaint. It comes across as being disingenuous, corny, or effeminate.” or “the opposite of simple, authentic and true: desperately exquisite, contrived to the point of ridiculousness.”


However God Help The Girl, directed by Stuart Murdoch from indie pop band Belle and Sebastian (which urban dictionary refers to as “the Beatles of twee.") is far from insincere. While Murdoch’s film is no doubt guilty of the colorful, nostalgic and overly meticulous mise-en-scene of a Wes Anderson film, content wise Murdoch is more of a Fellini. 

Much like in Fellini's 8 1/2, one gets the feeling that Murdoch's characters are surrogates for himself and the people in his life. Besides the obvious experience of being in a band, aspects of Murdoch's life make their way into the plot. Murdoch's own struggles with an eating disorder take form in his character Eve. Murdoch is no stranger to the isolation and depression Eve faces nore, as evidenced by his successful career, the determination Eve shows pulling herself out of it with help from her friends of course. His religious faith takes form in his character James. While struggling to learn to dirrect on the job, Murdoch reportedly visited a local Glasgow church to pray for his movie. Similarly to how Fellini breaks up the stages of the anima into characters, Murdoch disperses his own attributes and past hardships amongst his main characters.

His character Anton even vocalizes criticism "the Beatles of twee" are no doubt familiar with -- "Your songs are depressing and self centered."

The musical numbers, rather than frivolous diversions from the truth, are Murdoch presenting the world to us as he, and thus his characters, see it. Here Fellini's influence again comes to the surface. Take, for example, the scene where the band is looking for a drummer and base player. They are chased by a ridiculously exaggerated number of people. That is most likely not what happened, however it's how the characters perceive the great number of people who auditioned for the band. Is that so far off from Guido envisioning elaborate movie sequences in his head?

Whit Stillman's Film, Metropolitan

Metropolitan, a 1900 film directed by Whit Stillman, is an interesting piece of work. The film is mostly driven by dialogue and there is not a lot that happens. Set in the twinkly and fashionable city of New York the film is about a group of upper class young teenagers who've just come back from first year at college and are looking for love, stability and purpose in life. The film begins with the central character, Tom Townsend, who attends a dress ball and meets by accident a group of Upper East Side socialists (who are the same age as Tom). When Tom gets invited to the groups after-hour party, Tom realizes he is a lot in common with the group he's just met. All come from wealthy families, and all are highly opinionated about a variety of subjects (like literature and society).

At the party, Tom meets Nick, the most talkative and cynical man within the group, Audrey, a shy and well read girl who develops a crush on Tom very quickly, and Charlie, a quite annoying moralistic nerd who has a deep affection for Audrey. These characters are so well drawn out by the dialogue that I felt I knew so much about the characters but also did not know enough to befriend them. Each character on the outside seemed respectable and mannerly but all of them had fragility within them. Tom talks so confidently about the novels of Jane Austen that it comes as a surprise when he admits to Audrey (who loves Regency era literature) that he's never read any of Jane Austen's works. Nick is also a complex character and terribly egocentric figure. When he declares, "It's a bit arrogant of people to go around worrying about those less fortunate," I just wanted to smack him on the face and tell him to wake up to the world. All the characters seem so lost and confused to what the world is (out of touch), that they say such foolish things. While characters like Audrey and Charlie are sensitive to human feelings and are aware of a world around them, characters like Nick and Tom seem indifferent and unchangeable characters.

While I loved the dialogue and the rhythm of the film, the film started to bore me as it continued. I never knew such people lived these lifestyles and although it was interesting and hilarious, I couldn't cling on to one character I liked or admired. At the end of the film, I was not surprised what happened. I expected the Rat Pack to go and live the same as they'd always had done. When Nick says, "I've always planned to be a failure anyway, that's why I plan to marry an extremely wealthy woman," I found it funny when he said it. But after having watched the film, I ceased to laugh.

Metropolitan is cool

The film Metropolitan explores debutante balls and the social community that surrounds this particular event. Even though it is said to have a similar style to that of a Jane Austen novel, I can't personally see the connection since I haven't read any. However it has a strong Lost Generation style to it. Reminiscent of the novels of Fitzgerald and Hemingway, the story revolves around a particular group of the characters that face great internal conflict. The Realist texts also complement the realist aspect of the film, depicting life as it is. Not to mention the focus of the bourgeoisie of Uptown Manhattan. The film also explores the signature writing style of Stillman, eloquent "dialogues" as they're called, mirroring discourses of great intellectual thinkers and theorists like the "Dialogues of Plato", a collection of his most famous works. They have somewhat existentialist thoughts, questioning their role and future in society. However, considering their high status, these thoughts of the future were cancelled out after meeting another older yuppie. The humanities are explored, like the political/economical ideologies of Tom, a strict disciple of Fourier socialism, which receive pejorative undertones considering it's epithet is Utopian socialism. This is present in the story as well; Charlie criticizing Tom's beliefs and basically stating they're doomed to fail. However, it seems that Tom's opinions and views on certain topics like the debutante balls are superficial. He believes his criticisms are valid even without actually experiencing said events. This could be a commentary on how people can't give valid reasons on something they have no experience with, therefore, they have no right on giving such a critique.

A View of Metropolitan from "Snobby" Bethesda [Metropolitan, Stillman, 1990]

With prom season impending, it's not hard to relate to the Upper East Manhattan characters of Whit Stillman's Metropolitan, caught in a ritual we know to be absurd, yet participating nonetheless for some sense of social engagement. If Charlie's UHB is "doomed" to fall, it sure takes its time. 26 years later, we still seem to teeter on the edges, peering down at the "less fortunate" below who perhaps by now considers our web of rites just that. Why the debutante, the escorts, the after-parties of exalting decadence? I don't know. But then, why the ceremony of promposals, the dress and tux, the dinner party before the grind? Go, because not going isn't a socially-viable option....

Privilege and youth - two characteristics that pack the wolves of Sally Fowler. The film doesn't stretch itself to offer grandiose statements on either. It is ironically modest, presenting both more as elements that make up our loveable characters than social issues under examination. We glimpse little of the characters' privilege beyond what they are inclined to ridicule. "Upper class" seeps through in dialogue, mise-en-scene, and music, but it never quite translates to anything. It's a context, a sentiment, but never quite an agent or force. For a time, Tom offers a "control" to the money-blind Wolf Pack, as when he insisted on walking home rather than share a taxi. With his integration, however, that wealth discrepancy miraculously disappears. That was not some continuity error on Stillman's part. Rather, I think it represents a confusion - what does privilege even mean?

That confusion arises from the Wolf Pack's second characteristic, youth. Entitlement and wealth never quite mean anything because our characters don't quite do anything. Even with the emotional triggers and social expectations, Metropolitan does not try to hide the fact that very little is at stake. The film primarily takes place at night, at the after parties and sidewalk conversations that exists based on the vague belief that existing justifies existence. During these hours, the pack debates the abstract, seeking love and acceptance like any other youth. We are reminded periodically that grownups watch over all these proceedings; the debutante and after-parties are of their making. In a sense, the season is but an affirmation of their offspring's status, a status the offspring, having only dealt with it in trivial terms, believes is sealing their "doom."

.....Which brings us back to prom. Our engagement with the beloved rite of passage is perhaps as awkward as the balls of Metropolitan. On one hand, we recognize the absurdity of the event, the pretentiousness and indeed our privilege in insisting on limos and after-parties (on a boat, really?). On the other, we continue to indulge it. We live with the drama of prom season, of traveling down the Hamptons to "rescue" our true love. We do, because while we deprecate ourselves on our abstract privilege while we are young, we know the rites we ridicule are what makes privilege concrete. In due time, the immunity and socio-economic capital that comes with being "UHB" will make the trivialities of debutante/prom season not so trivial. 

Metropolitan: Fragility

Fragility in Metropolitan is a key issue. Every character in Stillman's flamboyant depiction of New York's wealthy college population seems to have some sort of inherent weakness that comes with age. Of all the characters, Audrey seems to get the focus in this aspect. She is depicted as a girl in transition into a woman, which according to Nick, is a very fragile stage. Of course, Tom, the not so wealthy kid from New York's not so wealthy college population upsets this precarious balance. So why Tom?
Because he is too sincere. Nick, possibly the most sincere and honest character in the film happens to not be on the same level as Tom. Although Nick comes off as straight forward and as someone who says what he thinks, he does not always go straight to the point. Nick seems to have some sense in the matter and says what he thinks only in certain occasions. As we see in the meeting between Nick and Tom, Nick knows what state the people at the party are in. Tom only realizes this at the end (or does he?). Nick is honest when he wants to be, mostly to bad effect. But the key difference is that Nick knows what he is saying has an effect. Tom is just an innocent young adult who stumbled in on a life of high class drama. And he was completely ill suited for the affair.
Through the film, it is easy to call Tom a little pathetic and Nick a mean mean man. Although on the surface these are true, Tom doesn't know any better and Nick has the right intentions in mind. Nick wants to eliminate the facade that is created around such parties but at the same time doesn't want to upset the balance. Tom... well he's just there to upset the balance.

Tom Isn't a Cool Guy

In 2015, Future, a popular musician, said "Imma choose the dirty over you". While I can't directly relate to this statement, a well known character in the film Metropolitan can't either. It is evident that throughout the film that Tom doesn't even know what to do in regards to his love life. He has no constant, and seems to be disproportionately torn between different women that cross his path. During this period, loyalty to ones partner is important, morally, but more so socially.

 Tom is quite the ironic because he always preaches these good morals about being unprivileged and enjoying it, but lacks the character traits of a decent human being in my opinion. It is dizzying to watch Tom run back and forth between different crushes or women of choice, like watching Stephen Curry play against the 76ers. This isn't Golden State though, and not everything is a swish. Culture is a huge factor in this film. Tom doesn't seem to adept to the social customs everyone else follows, and everyone else is appalled when Tom is completely unaware of the unspoken rules.

This makes Tom quite the interesting character, he isn't completely relatable, but the viewer does feel some level of sympathy for his goofiness.

Metropolitan: Deception of the Impending Doom - A Satire

Metropolitan: Deception of the Impending Doom - A Satire

By: James Lepinsky

Metropolitan is the 1990 debut from director Whit Stillman, and this film centers around a group of college freshmen in the "bougie" borough of Manhattan. Each characters' objective, desire, or goal is not clearly stated, but the witty dialogue is the cornerstone of this Whit Stillman film. Right from the beginning, we are introduced to the blatant satire of aristocratic culture, and the esoteric topics that this friend group talks about. The main character, Tom Townsend, is arguably dragged into this aristocratic friend group by his admiration of Audrey Rouget. Together, Tom and the rest of the group discuss socialism and the essays of Charles Fourier, and discuss the dissenting opinions of Marxist socialism and utopian socialism. This philosophical and existential statements set a very interesting tone for the film, because without it, Metropolitan would arguably not be a satire anymore. Charlie Black proclaims "no more ridiculous than life itself!" when he offers his friends to dance the Cha-Cha. However, the comments concerning downward social mobility and the proclaims on how the characters "are all doomed!" also strikes an interesting point in itself.

What exactly are these characters referring to? Downward social mobility refers to the significant decline in wealth and/or income due to some circumstance. Does that mean Stillman is making the argument that the New York aristocratic culture is doomed to fail due to the economic structure of the 1980s? Are they implying that they are being "hunted by the poor"? The answers are not really stated, but it is somewhat obvious that the characters are very out of step with the society they lived in at the time of the film, 1980s New York. Charlie, Tom, Nick Smith, and Audrey would probably all unanimously agree that New York is slowly "drowning" as Tom states that the St. Regis Hotel will soon be "torn down" as he looks down from his balcony onto the beautiful New York City.

There are a lot of things that director Stillman does right, and with Metropolitan, he further proves that he is the master of satire. He paints this portrait that creates the deception that the future of the aristocracy and the future of the city life in general is about to crumble, but he also asks "who actually believes that?" So, when Charlie proclaims "it's no more ridiculous than life itself!", it becomes an existentialist version of what everyone is arguing: sooner or later, the aristocracy will be a failure, or a death (which Stillman also alludes that there is a correlation between the two).

In conclusion, Metropolitan is a satire on the fragile culture that mocks the extremely "bougie" side of contemporary New York culture. While viewers may argue that this "philosophy" is problematic, it's good to see that the characters are playing into their own insecurities, and becomes pawn of their own deception; the deception that their lives will one day crumble.

Metropolitan, a successful film about failure

Whit Stillman's Metropolitan (1990) follows newcomer Tom Townsend's (Edward Clements) relationship with a group of teenage friends during a debutant season in the late 80's/early 90's.  The group's witty dialogue and overly formal interactions seem right out of a Jane Austin novel. In many ways they exist out of time, their interests in literature and social elitism are of another century. The continuity editing, fades between scenes, and simplistic camera movement resonate with older films made in the American studio system, adding to yet another time period to the mix. The classy yet blandly furnished apartment settings could be a set constructed all in one studio. In actuality nothing could be further from the truth, one of the film's many paradoxes. Metropolitan was filmed on a mere $50,000. Stillman shot mostly in borrowed apartments or out on New York's streets in a rogue, on location style of shooting that Stillman later reflected was just glorified sneaking around. With its relatively low budget,  Metropolitan has got to be the cheapest film about rich people ever made.

"We were essentially stealing shots with walkie talkies in our pockets telling us to go because the camera's rolling. The whole thing, it just felt like this insane lark."- Whit Stillman

Metropolitan is a balance of postmodernist existentialism and satire of the young, wealthy, and intellectual. The film's characters are sympathetic yet frequently mocked by circumstance.  They are clearly stuck in an era which they do not belong. They have trouble functioning in present day New York, outside of their sheltered world of deb after parties. The final scene, where the hero rushes to save the girl, is complicated by the fact that he does not have a drivers license.  A comedic montage set to an upbeat Cha-cha shows Tom and enemy turned ally, Charlie Black (Taylor Nichols), enter multiple car rentals in vain. The film's characters, self aware as always, comment on their own romanticizing of the past.

"So many things which were better in the past have been abandoned for supposed convenience."-  Nick Smith (Chris Eigeman) 

Indeed, the bourgeoisie, like many old things, are beginning to be abandoned for their lack of practicality. The world no longer has a purpose for these young, educated people who were so expensive to create. The kids are more aware than anyone that the "preppy" class is being fazed out for something more pragmatic. They've started off so high that there's not really anywhere to go but down.  Nick claims they are all doomed to failure but an ex-preppy Tom and Charlie later encounter informs them that this is not the case.

"We simply fail without being doomed." 

The film's exploration of the existential questions about failure and fate ends without an answer.  Stillman chooses to end the film not after Tom and Charlie barge in and save innocent, well read, Audrey Rouget (Carolyn Farina) from the sliminess of Rick Von Slonecker, but with the three remaining members of the now disintegrated friend group stranded on the side of a road. This ending seems to play on Truffaut's famous ending to The 400 Blows,  however, instead of running along the road like Truffaut's character, they walk, melancholy and disillusioned. The effect is the same, however: a cinematic "well, what now?"

Though at first I found the character's elitism and wealth alienating, the message hits close to home. As someone about to go off to film school and spend a great sum of money on a brain I'm not entirely sure the world needs, the impracticality of intellectualism and existential thought frightens me.  I'd be terrified at this prospect if it weren't for the fact that I really like camping and I suppose I wouldn't mind doing it all the time and also in a van.

FILM 1: Metropolitan (Whit Stillman 1990)

Remember:  no movie reviews.

Also, your entry should be in the form of  a POST.  Do not put your entry in the comments section of this post.