Zusammen in Paris

I wish that I could remember the very first time I ever tasted chocolate, or felt a cool breeze, or laughed at a funny joke. I can't, sadly, but if I had to wager, I'd bet that any of those three events felt very similar to my first watching of "Paris.. When It Sizzles." Watching this movie feels like falling in love; sweet and joyful and slightly decadent all at once. It's often given a bad rap, and I can't for the life of me understand why. It's a beautiful, lighthearted romantic comedy, and the chemistry between the incomparable Audrey Hepburn and William Holden is undeniable. I'll admit, "Paris.." is no "Sabrina," another (dare I say perfect) Hepburn/Holden film, but I still feel it deserves a nod as a true classic and as a highlight of the careers of both of its stars. Tony Curtis's cameo is pure comedy, delightful as they come. Make your own decision and see this one for yourself, especially if you are an Audrey fanatic like I am. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

If you are a wannabe writer, a writer or simply a fan of movie making or the art of writing, this film is a must see. It's not a perfect film. One wonders at times whether some of the rare serious moments in the movie, or the sugary sweet romance, were poorly written on purpose - but it doesn't matter because it all fits together wonderfully with the parody of bad movie writing, which is what this movie is about. Don't watch this film with anyone who is uncomfortable with unconventional movies, or who is an impatient nitpicker - they won't be happy. The biggest mistake in making this movie was probably the title, which is too misleading and not punchy enough for this genre. Interestingly, Orsen Wells wanted to direct this film but didn't get the job. It would have become a classic under his direction, but as it is now, it's just a silly, lighthearted (mostly), fun, risque, self-indulgent, and even didactic, film about the movie business.

This is a film that only screenwriters and budding screenwriters will get. You have to have more than a passing interest in the process of writing a screenplay to enjoy the witty satire, wry comedy and not have a lot of the in jokes fly over your head. In that regard the film is brilliant and contains one of William Holden's best performances. Audrey Hepburn too is perfectly cast in the role of his secretary/ultimate partner and is a performance that stands right up there alongside her more celebrated roles in "Charade" and "Breakfast at Tiffany's". One of those films that seems too smart for a general audience. I have watched it over the years too with family and friends only to have them get left behind by the plot and start saying how stupid they thought the picture was. Maybe the best movie about the madness of screen writing ever made. Period.

I love practically all movies for one reason or another, and I absolutely adore Audrey Hepburn. However, when I watched this movie, it was with two people who would never have considered watching an "old" movie. Fortunately for them I had the remote and they were forced to watch it, and to my great surprise, they loved it. To the intelligent lover of movies who enjoys the stop and go style of movies from that era, you will not be disappointed. The plot may seem slow at times, but when it moves, it flies. Definitely check it out if you are in an Audrey kind of mood.

This movie isn't everyone's cup of tea. Hepburn called it her least favorite film. Audiences shunned it. At the time of writing, IMDb gives it a measly 6.0 rating. Nevertheless, it is one of my all-time favorite movies.

The problem with this film is that it isn't what everyone seems to be expecting it to be: a mindless romantic comedy. Quite on the contrary: this is a work that I can only compare with "Adaptation". It is a story about how stories actually get written: non-linearly, spasmodically, through much self-doubt and simultaneously excessive (narcissistic, really) introspection. (Although, to be fair, in Hollywood the practice has mostly been to call in a whole bunch of writers to fix up the messes left by writers of earlier drafts, so this is least true of how Hollywood movie scripts get written, but it is true just about everywhere else.) Like "Adaptation", this is a movie that takes the plunge into the mind of the writer as he creates a miniature, constantly shifting and bubbling world for us to visit, only to find a second world inside that first, and probably more where that came from. I don't think that you can appreciate it without having written something yourself, but if you have, then you know the feeling: life mimicking art, mimicking life, mimicking art. Personally, for me, the greatest cameo in this movie isn't the appearance of Tony Curtis or Frank Sinatra, but the fact that in mid-shooting William Holden had to be checked into a rehab clinic. How's that for life and art? Again, like in "Adaptation", the story makes no sense, and, in fact, cannot make any sense. Its what the movie is about. To let us watch and keep our sanity, humor is used abundantly. It is well written wit and quite funny, but it isn't what this movie is about, and taking it to be what the movie is about is perhaps what led to its being so underrated.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" says the Wizard of Oz, and as far as box office success goes, he's right. Audiences don't like it when the magician shows how the trick is performed. This movie is a prime example. Another is Schwarzenegger's "Last Action Hero". If you like romantic comedies, you should probably avoid this movie. If you want to see a smart film about the madness of writing, this is a soft introduction to the topic.