MetropolitanWatching Metropolitan is almost like revisiting my college days, because I can recall many late nights walking from the English undergrad building on Tuesday nights with my fellow young poets after our weekly club, talking about our writing and other experiences with a seriousness and enthusiasm that comes with that age, forming bonds and navigating minor social conflicts that seem more important than they probably really are, fostering a camaraderie that comes when like-minded people confront the hurdle that is "growing up". Whit Stillman's inaugural feature film captures that sense of friendship with sincerity, satire, and even kindness.
|
|
Metropolitan follows the story of a group of urban haute bourgeoisie, "UHB" for short--a "technically more accurate alternative to descriptors like 'preppie'". Don't worry if you don't know what that means...you won't be able to hear it after watching this film without a chuckle. The young Manhattan socialites are engaged in attending a series of debutante balls, when they inadvertently recruit an unlikely accomplice in Tom Townsend (Edward Clements), who is apprehensively drawn into the infectious fun of preppy after parties. Tom is too polite to truly reject their invitation into the SFRP (Sally Fowler Rat Pack...they love acronyms), but finds acceptance in the company of the young Upper East Siders, especially the cynical-yet-straightforward Nick (Chris Eigeman). While Tom still holds a torch for ex-flame Serena, Jane Austen-enthusiast and soft-spoken debutante Audrey Rouget (Carolyn Farina) holds a torch herself for Tom, while the stammering snob UHB-originator Charlie (Taylor Nichols) holds a torch for Audrey, in a grand conga line of unrequited love. And while affection and friendship are key themes to Metropolitan, Stillman never asks us to take these things for granted, and gives us scene after scene where the conversations feel real and the interplay between this clique develops, so that we feel as much a part of the SFRP as Tom and the gang. The heart of Metropolitan beats to the tune of Tom and Audrey's blossoming relationship. An early conversation between the two of them deals with a discussion about Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park", and their differing opinions about the quality of the work, which opens the door for them so they learn a little more about what makes one another tick, and how knowing someone forms the basis of a good relationship. The discussions about Jane Austen are ironic--also with regards to other works by the author, such as "Pride and Prejudice"--given the two young people seem distant and do not understand each other so well at first, but become very close as the story progresses. (Admittedly, Audrey has Tom at a disadvantage when they meet, but cleverly withholds this knowledge so as not to invoke any prejudice herself.) In fact, this conversation about Jane Austen is representative of the whole of Metropolitan, itself a story which deals with the "untitled aristocracy" and relationships in a dry, satirical, but clever way. And just as Audrey's journey is the development of her confidence and emotional understanding, Tom's experience is one where he is pressed into maturity; and with that comes a realization about his disintegrating childhood and youthful aspirations giving way in the light of his age, replaced with his new friendships with people like Audrey and Charlie, whom Tom had previously remarked as being like the "preppy St. Francis", via one of Nick's allegory about South Hampton seagulls. One of the best representations of this comes when he discovers his collection of childhood toys left in the trash, from which he plucks a toy Derringer; he later uses this to "save" Audrey from the slimy clutches of the dastardly Rick Von Sloneker (Will Kempe).
With regards to Metropolitan's dialogue and clever humor, Whit Stillman certainly lives up to his name...the "Whit" part, not the "Stillman" part...that wouldn't make any sense. I mean that the language and comedy is, indeed, witty; one might argue that the characters are "too educated" or "too clever", but didn't we feel so very smart in our college days? Didn't we feel that our deep conversations late until dawn about great writers and essayists--Fourier or otherwise--were full of relevant and intelligent content? So why then shouldn't this nostalgic reflection of our youth carry that same cleverness and charm? True, many of us didn't spend our Christmas in tuxedos at deb parties eating hors d'oeuvres--but I'm sure many of us played the same kind of games that Tom, Nick, Audrey, et al played, be it bridge or spin-the-bottle. One of the shining achievements of Metropolitan is its ability to portray characters who are exceptionally dry, belonging to an intellectual caste and perhaps elitist set without alienating the audience and without reproach. Our characters are surprisingly human, even if the plot may seem a parody of upper crust socializing. They have those kind of tangible emotions and problems which are universal among youth, and watching the film, one realizes that they're not so lofty up on high from us as they might seem. They're scared, young adults in, or just out of, college--and the future is uncertain; that's not such an unfamiliar feeling. It's good to look back fondly on our youth and remember our lofty ambitions and the relationships we formed, even if time has sent those ships sailing on differing winds.
Recommended for: Fans of humor as dry as a martini, but nonetheless clever and appropriate for any literate audience; a jovial comedy of manners that resembles the spiritual successor of Oscar Wilde and Jane Austen--and you will enjoy the movie all the more if you know who those people are.
With regards to Metropolitan's dialogue and clever humor, Whit Stillman certainly lives up to his name...the "Whit" part, not the "Stillman" part...that wouldn't make any sense. I mean that the language and comedy is, indeed, witty; one might argue that the characters are "too educated" or "too clever", but didn't we feel so very smart in our college days? Didn't we feel that our deep conversations late until dawn about great writers and essayists--Fourier or otherwise--were full of relevant and intelligent content? So why then shouldn't this nostalgic reflection of our youth carry that same cleverness and charm? True, many of us didn't spend our Christmas in tuxedos at deb parties eating hors d'oeuvres--but I'm sure many of us played the same kind of games that Tom, Nick, Audrey, et al played, be it bridge or spin-the-bottle. One of the shining achievements of Metropolitan is its ability to portray characters who are exceptionally dry, belonging to an intellectual caste and perhaps elitist set without alienating the audience and without reproach. Our characters are surprisingly human, even if the plot may seem a parody of upper crust socializing. They have those kind of tangible emotions and problems which are universal among youth, and watching the film, one realizes that they're not so lofty up on high from us as they might seem. They're scared, young adults in, or just out of, college--and the future is uncertain; that's not such an unfamiliar feeling. It's good to look back fondly on our youth and remember our lofty ambitions and the relationships we formed, even if time has sent those ships sailing on differing winds.
Recommended for: Fans of humor as dry as a martini, but nonetheless clever and appropriate for any literate audience; a jovial comedy of manners that resembles the spiritual successor of Oscar Wilde and Jane Austen--and you will enjoy the movie all the more if you know who those people are.