I’ll keep that in mind…

I understand. I gotcha.

Ha ha hah….

Pierre, you may be right. You just never know.

According to the almighty IMDB, the narrator in question is CHRISTOPER EVAN WELCH.

He’s done theatre (THE CRUCIBLE off Broadway), TV (several versions of LAW & ORDER, THE SOPRANOS) and film (THE HOAX, THE GOOD SHEPHERD, THE INTERPRETER).

But hard to believe that he chose this fella unless, as we both think, there was a particular objective that WOODY was striving for. Mr. Welch doesn’t have a great voice. He’s not mellifluous, dulcet toned or even particularly interesting to listen to.

So there must be something else going on…

Hell, I wish WOODY would’ve asked me. I know WOODY’S NOT sexist. But I doubt that he would’ve wanted a young woman to describe the events of that particular story. Would’ve placed a completely different spin on it.

But VO work is likely something that I’m gonna be doing a lot of at some juncture. KATHLEEN TURNER was a huge success back in the day…and her voice was one thing that can be attributed to that.

She and I really sound alike.

So I imagine that that kind of employment may very well pay the rent for a spell…

Just kidding.

This is pretty damned extraordinary.

Pierre, two things…

“(In fact, I think that people spend too much time thinking and not enough time examining or allowing their feelings.)”

Here, here.

As a girl who is wildly emotional but a deep thinker nonetheless – and almost equally divided between my head and my heart – I’ll lead with my feelings EVERY DAMN TIME. They seem more authentic and meaningful to me.

Despite what I just said, I find that it’s my heart and my hormones that are usually battling it out for first place. It’s almost inevitable that it will be one or the other. My cerebral side DOESN’T STAND A CHANCE.

I also feel that #121 is particularly insightful and makes the most astonishing sense. That’s what I was actually thinking all along. But I certainly didn’t articulate it in such a fluent fascinating way.

But I’m glad YOU did, Pierre.

As for you, Mr. Kennedy…

Well, obviously you’re an optimist.

In spite of my flights of fancy, perpetual romanticism and extravagant hormonal displays, when you get down to the FINAL layer, I’m a hardcore practical realist.

I didn’t say the girls were gonna kill themselves or anything. They’ve lived and they will certainly learn from their mistakes. But I think VICKY’S marriage is doomed. She may stay in it for decades for all I know. However, I do think it’s living on borrowed time.

I don’t know what’s going to happen with CRISTINA.

But the entire point of the film is that life changes drastically and, even if you end up with what YOU THINK YOU WANT, it will turn out NOT to be what you wanted AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

So even if you stay in that relationship or marriage there is no happy ending or victory. Everything fades or becomes something else. There is no escaping this.

If this had been a different film, then I could give this the benefit of the doubt and concur with you, Craig. But not this time.

WOODY’S entire point is that we are ALL condemned to go on searching, longing, lusting, smoldering or pining away for something we can never possess. Even if it’s only the lovely dream that we imagined our current relationship to be at one point in time.

During a glorious summer day, you can chase a beautiful butterfly ALL OVER the countryside. It’s so gorgeous that you just want a closer look. Need to hold it in your hands. But how can you catch it if it never lands…?

Can’t tell you how disappointed I am that you said you were like VICKY. Ah, well.

But at least she allowed herself to be seduced. Even she knew that she had to let loose a little.

Every now and then….

There are two reasons, or effects, that I think Allen was trying to achieve by employing narration in marked contrast to the tone of the onscreen action. I’ve discussed them at length above, but essentially they fall into two categories: humor and social mores.

We’ve discussed the humorous possibilities of using narration that doesn’t blend aesthetically or not quite logically with the action.

We’ve also discussed the collision of two different systems of social mores (in simplistic shorthand, American vs. European).

I believe the narration, as used, helps condition viewers to be more receptive to the value in — and less likely to judge disapprovingly — the culturally atypical behaviors portrayed.

A “prettier” (more traditional or predictable) narration might seduce or lull us, keeping our attentions too sharply focused on the level of story. A contrasting narration might “wake up” some of us to the possibilities of new life perspectives, that indeed we do have more choices than we think in deciding who we are and what our human relationships can be — that different societies have different conventions and different ways in which to feel fulfilled and happy — that we don’t need to do things just because they’re expected of us — that we don’t have to think and feel a certain way just because we’ve been told that’s the way it works — that personal and professional success has more than one measure, and so on.

My disappointment comes when I witness a conscious decision to exclude such possibilities in favor of rationale that cite aesthetics while concluding it’s all just a mistake.

Yes. In fact, my first consideration was that Woody’s instincts were wrong. My second was to try to ignore it or, at least, to get used to it. As the film progressed, I began to see how the disparate parts might fit together — to actually enhance the effect of the onscreen action and serve the film as a whole.

When others expressed critically negative views of the narration, I could relate. But by then I also felt that it would be too easy to dismiss this aspect of an otherwise accomplished film.

I considered alternatives extending from the negative views of others but couldn’t imagine how changing the narration would’ve improved the film overall. Nor did anyone offer examples — despite my urging — of how altering the narration in any way would’ve improved the film as a whole.

I’m a big believer in listening to first impressions. But I also believe one needs to understand what they represent. A filmmaker of Woody Allen’s stature deserves consideration that extends beyond an initial knee-jerk response.

I’m no expert on classical or Pavlovian conditioning, but I wouldn’t put it past Mr. Allen to engage in such fun.

I hope that all makes sense. And Pierre, I don’t really have a ’supportable’ argument because my contention isn’t something quantifiable or suitable to rationalization – my position is simply that the voiceover, as delivered, felt out of tune to me, simple as that – a mistake within the bigger picture of the film. You can try to prove to me that there was some bigger picture reason for it to be as it is, but I can’t prove a negative to you, beyond the gut-level reaction.

I agree that your attitude of approach makes for more stimulating and potentially enlightening thinking, but I’m wondering if you’re taking it as an exercise or as a point of fact that Allen is correct in this case.

Although we’ve spent a lot of time discussing the narration of VCB, I don’t feel it’s been overthunk, at least on my end. (In fact, I feel that people in general spend too much time thinking and not enough time allowing or examining their feelings.) Most of my many comments here are an attempt to say basically the same thing in different ways. They reflect, among other things, what I was taught in film and acting classes with world renowned teachers and on the job as an actor, producer and reviewer regarding an open, nonjudgmental approach when exploring such things as character and intention.

My comments have as much to do with one’s approach to film analysis in general as they do with dissecting a particular aspect of a particular film.

So far, I’ve offered an interpretation of VCB “as is” and have provided rationale as to why I think it’s good as is.

You’ve provided an alternative you seem to say would improve the film. I’ve considered your suggestion to recast the narrator in a particular way but so far have been unable to imagine how that would bring about an improvement. All you’ve provided up to this point is justification that the narration, if recast as you indicate, would result in a better aesthetic in and of itself . But you’ve yet to offer an explanation as to how your vision would make a better film. Going outside the film — to Allen’s failures in other films — does nothing to effectively support your arguments.

Along the way, I’ve considered your insights and am pleased to say they helped me better understand the film. (In fact, one of your points/arguments ended up providing support for my view.) That you’ve maintained a presence on this thread — despite my prodding — to me is a good sign of things to come.

What is important to me as one who discusses film in depth is this: Where do my reactions — whether negative or positive — lead me? In the case of an accomplished filmmaker in an otherwise accomplished film, I’m particularly suspicious of strong reactions that close the door to potential, reasonable interpretations.

And my point has been, open-mindedness is great, but there’s also such a thing as diminishing returns when travelling down open-mindedness alley.

One of things I’ve been trying to do in this thread is emphasize the value of an openminded approach to film analysis. If I respond strongly to an aspect of a film — whether it’s positive or negative — I feel it’s worthwhile to examine why. What are possible reasons, both within the film and within my own experience, why I’ve reacted that way? Other factors to consider include the quality of the remainder of the film and the expertise of the filmmaker. If I draw a conclusion that has survived the level of first reactions, it may or may not be the same conclusion as before.

I’m also open to alternative views that provide plausible rationale. Even an opposing view may contain insight that deepens my understanding.

To one degree or another, I found each one of the characters relatable on some level. I’m probably more like Vicky however; someone who’s a litlte too uptight to really know what’s good for her.

I have nothing else to add on the narration. I’m finally at peace with it, but I take issue with Miranda’s take on the tone of the ending. There’s a melancholy for the loss of what could’ve been, but I sense a note of optimism in that perhaps each of the women have grown and changed in some way. There is hope for the future.

Disagree if you will, but arguments that aren’t plausible — arguments that seem molded to serve a predetermined outcome — aren’t effective.

My sense is that, as a result of the trip, the quality of Vicky’s marriage will improve — for starters, their sex life appears to have an additional spark.

Regarding the narration, your word “pretentious” seem apt. Again, I believe that’s intentional, and for me it serves a purpose that enhances the film.

106, y’all…

I just saw VCB for the second time last night and I’d like to contribute some brief musings.

I fell in love with it all over again. I had the same brief blast of ennui going in and the identical thought crossed my mind as before. Am I going to be able to get into this…?

Setting the scene at the outset is a bit bland. But as soon as JAVIER arrives at the girls’ table at the restaurant with his provocative proposal, it gets interesting REAL FAST and then sets the tone for the rest of the action. As it were.

I found the settings, the architecture and the general loveliness of Barcelona enchanting beyond belief. So gorgeous…and the perfect backdrop for these lost romantic souls to be bewitched, bothered and bewildered.

I found my supreme identification with CRISTINA solidified. (I certainly relate to SCARLETT JOHANSSON a great deal in any case.) When she talked openly about not knowing what she wanted but being aware of PRECISELY WHAT SHE DIDN’T WANT…

It’s uncanny. I DID notice that the first time. But those exact same words have been spoken by me OVER AND OVER AGAIN since adolescence. But I had forgotten about her “tragic, romantic, free thinking outlook on life” that was discussed in the VO.

No wonder I adore this.

Though there are a few significant differences between CRISTINA and myself, WOODY has created a character that could be me on any given day. To be able to see into the hearts and minds of twentysomething women with such perception, realism and wisdom when you’re a straight man in your 70s is a significant and rare accomplishment.

Nearly impossible…and WOODY did it with such style and grace.

This time around, I found the narration mercilessly annoying. Yeah, the guy is significantly YOUNGER than WOODY. Perhaps not as young as VICKY and CRISTINA. But still…

For someone omniscient (narrators have that nailed down by the nature of the job, right?), he really did come across as a pompous, annoying fool awash in his own self importance. His tone is quite pretentious.

As Craig and Pierre were saying earlier in the thread, WOODY has plenty of experience in these endeavours. It’s likely that he intended for the narration to expose SOMETHING. Have a specific purpose or point.

I know that many times people have read grandiose things into WOODY’S actions in terms of character motivation or writing and when people have asked him about it (in interviews or at Q&A’s), his answers are generally rather mundane.

But I wonder if he really means it.

Perhaps he thinks that if we don’t get it then there’s no point in an explanation. Or possibly he prefers to be mysterious in some way. Guess we’ll never know for sure.

I also found DOUG a hell of a lot more annoying on this particular journey as well. He’s attractive and he’s NOT a bad person. But I wouldn’t have been able to be in a room with him for two seconds flat.

He is SO relentessly shallow and utterly conventional. He’s the kind of guy that you’d have 2.4 kids with and have sex with on a Saturday night if he’s not too preoccupied with the fluctuations of the market. And that’s ALL YOU’D GET for that particular week, too.

Such a entirely soulless corporate suit. There’s nothing to him.

No thanks, babe.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a sensualist and sensualists CAN NOT be happy without money and a comfortable lifestyle.

(AT LEAST. However, it’s always good to provide that stuff for yourself regardless. Be independent and whatnot.. Then if someone can bring something else to the party, that’s always fun.)

But there has to be more meaning and actual significance in life THAN THAT.

But a lifestyle and a particular level of upper middle class affluence are ALL that DOUG has to offer VICKY. No wonder she fell for JUAN ANTONIO. Who the hell could blame her????

The ending got to me harder too.

*********MINOR SPOILERS***********

When the girls hit the airport stateside, the looks on their faces were very telling. They seemed absolutely miserable, melancholy, HAUNTED.

I talked at length on other blogs (and at my site) about how I felt about all this. Not that it was a lark or anything. But that I have an acceptance for life just the way it is. No sugar coating that little pill. Just take it and wash it down with something good.

But it is horrificly sad to watch VICKY and CRISTINA come home like that. They had experienced life over there – and they were clearly both devastated.

*********END MINOR SPOILERS**********

But.I was genuinely awestruck by this.

It’s playing at one of my favourite cinemas in town – the 40s movie palace at the edge of the city centre. It will still be in the downtown area for some time but VCB does end there Thursday to make way for (wait for it…) THE WOMEN.

From the sublime to the ridiculous.

MY GOOD GOD…..

So I’ll be going again this coming week. It’s the perfect place to experience it (and believe me…..mood and ambience mean a hell of a lot to me) and I intend to take full advantage of it as the summer comes roaring to a close……….

I was making a direct observation about the fact that you said you can hardly remember H&W – and it sounds like Craig has never seen it. I consider it to be the best thing he’s ever done. So it’s a total 360 between my impression of it and what you two both think.

That’s all.

I adored VCB and I think there are a number of parallels between it and H&W. Maybe even more than I can come up with off the top of my head at this moment in time….

Craig and Pierre, you two both have wonderful intellects and possess equally impressive, broad based knowledge about film.

Having been exposed to WOODY’S ouevre in its totality (with the exception of CASSANDRA’S DREAM), it’s my opinion that HUSBANDS & WIVES is the best motion picture he ever made.

So your mutual reaction is kind of astonishing to me.

But I’m certainly cognizant of the fact that this is all completely subjective.

And that’s 101…..

I’m unable to quickly compare one Allen to another simply because I’m inexpert having always enjoyed his work without going crazy for it. I’m thinking of having a little retrospective covering some of his big hits and a few of the ones (like Husbands and Wives) that have slipped through the cracks.